Judgment:
Sabina, J.
Vide this judgment, the above mentioned three appeals would be disposed of as these have arisen out of the same FIR.
On 12.2.2006, Inspector Amarjit Singh was present along with other police officials under the supervision of Deputy Superintendent of Police Harjit Singh Brar in the area of village Qila Raipur near school stadium on the link road leading from Qila Raipur towards Mehma Singh. At about 6.45 A.M., Rampal son of Telu Ram came there on a bicycle from the side of Qila Raipur. He was joined with the police party. At about 7.00 A.M., truck No. PB-04C-9795 came from the side of Qila Raipur. The said truck was signaled to stop. The driver stopped the truck at a distance of about 15 karams from the naka party. One clean shaven person with dark complexion jumped from the cleaner side of the truck. Sub Inspector Balbir Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector Jasmer Singh, Constable Sukhjit Singh and Constable Jasbir Singh chased him but he managed to escape. Assistant Sub Inspector Mohammad Zamil apprehended the other person who was trying to run away from the cleaner side. He (Inspector Amarjit Singh) apprehended the person who was trying to run away from the driver side of the truck with the help of his associates. The said person disclosed his name as Dilbag Singh alias Bittu. He was the owner and driver of the truck. The said person who had been apprehended by Assistant Sub Inspector Mohammad Zamil, disclosed his name as Ajmer Singh alias Ghola who was working as a helper on the truck. Assistant Sub Inspector Jasmer Singh disclosed the name of the person who had succeeded in running away as Chhinder Singh alias Peter alias Kala as he had arrested him earlier in an excise case relating to Police Station Hambran. Thereafter, Deputy Superintendent of Police Harjit Singh Brar disclosed his identity to Dilbag Singh and Ajmer Singh. Both the accused were apprised by the Deputy Superintendent of Police that he wanted to search their truck as he suspected that it contained some illegal substance. Then both the accused reposed faith in the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Consent memos in this regard of the accused were prepared. Thereafter, on the direction of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Inspector Amarjit Singh conducted the search of the truck and 89 bags, with sewn mouths, were recovered under 212 bags of peas. On checking the 89 bags, it was found that they contained poppy husk. Samples of 100 grams each were separated from each bag of recovered poppy husk. The remaining poppy husk in each bag on weighment came to 39 kgs. 800 grams. The bags were marked as serial No. 1 to 89. The samples as well as the residue poppy husk were made into sealed parcels and were sealed with seals bearing impression 'HS' (of Deputy Superintendent of Police Harjit Singh Brar) and 'AS' (of Inspector Amarjit Singh). The case property was taken in possession.
On the basis of ruqa (Ex.PG), formal FIR No. 16 dated 12.2.2006 was registered at Police Station Dehlon under Section 15, 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('Act' for short).
Thereafter, appellants Dilbag Singh and Ajmer Singh along with the case property were produced before the Magistrate on 13.2.2006 and the following order was passed:-
“Accused produced before me being the duty Magistrate. Heard. In view of the police request, accused Dilbag Singh and Ajmer Singh are remanded to police custody till 17.2.2006. Case property consisting of 89 bags of poppy husk along with 178 samples of 100 gms. each also produced before me, which are sealed with seals of 'AS' and 'HS'. The seals are intact. The case property is seen and signed by me and be put up before the concerned Magistrate for further proceedings.”
On 25.2.2006, the case property was produced before Magistrate for proceedings under Section 52-A of the Act and the following order was passed:-
“In pursuance of the application having been moved u/s 52(A) of NDPS Act, 89 sealed parcels containing poppy husk weighing 39 KG 800 gram each bearing seals 'AS' and 'HS' alongwith 89 sample parcels weighing 100 grams each of poppy husk bearing seals 'AS' and 'HS' intact were produced before me. Photographs of which have been taken. Sample of 100 grams of poppy husk from the case property were allowed to be drawn under the provisions of Section 52(a) Sub Section (2) of the NDPS Act. The parcels of remaining poppy husk weighing 39 KG 700 grams each sealed by this court with the seal “RC” of the undersigned. It is hereby certified that case property alongwith sample mentioned above have been produced before me and photographs have been taken to preserve identity. The sample have also been extracted from the parcel and seals have been appended which have been produced and found to be intact, it is hereby certified that in pursuance of the provisions u/s 52(A) of NDPs Act prescribing the manner for disposal of the case property, as per circular order No. 9, of ADGP Crime, Punjab dated 31.5.2001, the application is hereby allowed and case property be destroyed, as per the rules formulated under the abovesaid circular order no. 9 dated 31.5.2001 and that too strictly by the Drug Disposal Committee. The case property be now deposited in the judicial Malkhana.”
After completion of investigation and necessary formalities challan was presented against the appellants.
In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 12 witnesses during trial.
After the close of prosecution evidence, appellant Ajmer Singh when examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.' for short) pleaded as under:-
“I am innocent. I have been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of Dr. Atma singh Veterinary Doctor of village Duley who is enimical towards me. Earlier also Dr. Atma Singh got me falsely implicated in a case under the NDPS Act and I was acquitted by the court of Sh. G.R.Banyal, Judge Special Court, Ludhiana. I was detained illegally by the police from canal bridge Jagera when I was going to village Kulhar to see the sister in law of my elder brother who was suffering from paralysis disease in order to get to medicine for her. An enquiry was also conducted by the Senior police officials in this case and I was found innocent in this case. I do not know the other accused in this case.”
Appellant Dilbag Singh when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., pleaded as under:-
“I am not driver of any truck. I have no knowledge of contraband articles. Nothing was recovered from my possession. I was picked up from my house on 11.2.2006 in the presence of respectables of my village. I am innocent and I have been falsely implicated in this case.”
Appellant Chhinder Singh when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., pleaded as under:-
“I was not present at the spot. I have no knowledge regarding the contraband. Co-accused is not known to me. My mother Moriya Bai moved the application against the police officials who get Rs. Two lacs from my mother. Later on my mother filed a writ petition against the police officials before Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court. Due to this enmity I was roped in the present case. I am innocent and falsely implicated in this case.”
The appellants examined four witnesses in their defence.
Learned senior counsel for appellant Ajmer Singh has submitted that the conscious possession of the appellant qua recovered contraband was not established. Assuming that the appellant was working as a helper on the truck, even then itcould not be attributed to him that he was in conscious possession of the contraband. In support of his argument, learned senior counsel has placed reliance on 'Ram Singh versus Central Bureau of Narcotics' 2011(2) RCR (Criminal) 850, wherein it was held that to hold a person guilty, possession of the contraband has to be conscious. Control over the goods is one of the tests to ascertain conscious possession so also the title. Once the article is found in possession of the accused, it can be presumed that he was in conscious possession.
Learned counsel for appellant Chhinder Singh has submitted that prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case. The said appellant had been falsely involved in this case. He was not arrested at the spot. No identification parade was conducted qua the said appellant.
Learned counsel for appellant Dilbag Singh has submitted that prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case. The independent witness alleged to have been joined at the time of recovery had not been examined during trial. Rather, the independent witness had moved a complaint before Human Rights Commission that he had been falsely introduced as a witness in this case.
Learned state counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that prosecution had been successful in proving its case. Appellants Dilbag Singh and Ajmer Singh were arrested at the spot. Appellant Chhinder Singh had been duly identified by Assistant Sub Inspector Jasmer Singh PW-7.
In order to prove its case, prosecution examined Inspector Amarjit Singh as PW-2, Deputy Superintendent of Police Harjit Singh Brar as PW-5, Assistant Sub Inspector Teja Singh as PW-3 and Assistant Sub Inspector Jasmer Singh as PW-7. All the said witnesses deposed that truck No. PB-04C- 9795 had been stopped on suspicion. One person from the cleaner side managed to escape although he was chased by Assistant Sub Inspector Jasmer Singh and others. So far as appellants Dilbag Singh and Ajmer Singh are concerned, they were apprehended at the spot. Appellant Chhinder Singh was arrested on 27.7.2006 by Head Constable Navtej Singh PW-6.
PW-12 Paramjit Kaur deposed that as per their record, Dilbag Singh was the owner of truck No. PB-04C-9795. PW-10 Gurmeet Singh proved the driving licence of Dilbag Singh. PW-1 Head Constable Gulab Singh deposed that on 12.2.2006 he was posted as MHC in Police Station Dehlon and Inspector Amarjit Singh had deposited 89 bags of poppy husk and 178 sample parcels of poppy husk weighing 100 grams each. The bags as well as the sample parcels were sealed with seals bearing impression 'AS' and 'HS'. On 13.2.2006 Inspector Amarjit Singh was handed over the case property for production of the same before the Area Magistrate. Inspector Amarjit Singh had redeposited the samples with him on his return to the police station. On 14.2.2006, he had handed over 89 parcels of poppy husk to Constable Gurpreet Singh for depositing the same with the Chemical Examiner and after doing the needful, the receipt was handed over to him by the constable. On 25.2.2006, 89 bags of poppy husk and 89 parcels of poppy husk were taken out from the malkhana for production in the court for proceedings under Section 52-A of the Act. Thereafter, the case property was again deposited with him after these were sealed by the Magistrate with seal bearing impression 'RC'. Till the case property remained with him, he did not allow anyone to tamper with the same. PW-8 Constable Gurpreet Singh has corroborated the statement of PW-1 qua deposit of the samples with the Chemical Examiner on 14.2.2006. As per Ex.P1, report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, the samples duly sealed with the seals bearing impression 'AS' and 'HS' were deposited with it on 14.2.2006 by Constable Gurpreet Singh. The samples were of Chura poppy heads.
Although appellant Chhinder Singh had not been arrested at the spot but he had been duly identified by PW-7 Assistant Sub Inspector Jasmer Singh. The said witness has categorically deposed that he knew Chhinder Singh as he had arrested him twice prior to this occurrence in excise cases when he was posted at Police Station Hambran and Dakha. Hence, the argument raised by the learned counsel for appellant Chhinder Singh that since appellant Chhinder Singh had not been arrested at the spot he was liable to be acquitted, is liable to be rejected as the said appellant had been duly identified at the spot by Assistant Sub Inspector Jasmer Singh.
All the appellants were travelling in truck No. PB-04C- 9795 at the time of recovery of contraband. Appellant Dilbag Singh is the owner as well as driver of the truck. Appellant Ajmer Singh was helper on the truck. Appellant Chhinder Singh was also travelling in the truck but managed to escape from the spot. Since all the appellants were travelling in the truck with the contraband, it is apparent that they were in conscious possession of the contraband. The judgment relied upon by the learned senior counsel for appellant Ajmer Singh fails to advance the case of the appellant as it is based on different facts. In the said case, the contraband was recovered from a room adjoining the kitchen of a hotel and the appellant in the said case was working as a servant in the hotel. It was held that servant of a hotel could not be said to be in possession of the contraband belonging to his master unless it was proved that it was left in his custody over which he had absolute control. However, the facts of the present case are different. In the present case all the appellants were travelling in a truck which was loaded with 212 bags of peas and 89 bags of poppy husk. After the apprehension of appellant Dilbag Singh and Ajmer Singh, they were produced on the next day along with the case property before the Area Magistrate. On 25.2.2006, the case property was again produced before the Magistrate for proceedings under Section 52-A of the Act. The case property was sealed by the Magistrate with her seal bearing impression 'RC'. The present case is a case of chance recovery. The police officials had no enmity or ill will against the appellants to have falsely involved them in this case. The police party was headed by Deputy Superintendent of Police Harjit Singh Brar and the recovery of the contraband was effected from the truck in his presence. The statements of the official witnesses cannot be brushed aside merely on the basis of their official status. The official witnesses were acting in discharge of their official duties and had no reason to plant such huge quantity of contraband on the appellants. The statements of the official witnesses inspire confidence. The defence witnesses DW-1 Harchand Singh and DW-2 Malwinder Singh fail to rebut the statements of the official witnesses. The said witnesses had not moved any application to the higher authorities against the police officials qua the false involvement of appellant Dilbag Singh in this case.
DW-3 Som Nath has proved the complaint filed by Rampal, the independent witness before Human Rights Commission. However, there is nothing on record to suggest as to what was decided by the commission on the said complaint filed by Rampal against Inspector Amarjit Singh and others. Although prosecution has not examined the independent witness during trial as he was won over by the accused but the appellants have also not examined the said witness in their defence. A perusal of Ex. DZ copy of the judgment passed in FIR No. 209 dated 16.6.2000 under Section 18 of the Act, Police Station Sadar Ludhiana reveals that appellant Ajmer singh was acquitted in the said case. The fact that appellant Ajmer Singh had been acquitted in the said case relating to Police Station Sadar Ludhiana does not lead to the inference that he has been falsely involved in the present case also. In the case under Section 18 of the Act, appellant Ajmer Singh was acquitted by giving him benefit of doubt. However, in the present case, the prosecution has been successful in proving its case.
DW-4 Head Constable Jasminder Singh has proved on record the copies of DDR register wherein no entry had been made in Police Station Dehlon qua departure of the police party on 12.2.2006. The said fact can be treated as irregularity but cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution case which has otherwise been duly established by the prosecution witnesses. In these circumstances, the learned trial court had rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants for commission of offence under Section 15 of the Act.
No ground for interference is made out.
Dismissed.