Sham Lal Vs. State - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances act 1985 - section 20--recovery of charas--booked--sample sent to cfsl--malkhana mohriar stated cfsl form not deposited with him--sample not sent to cfsl--not handed over to constable to sent to--benefit of doubt--seal not in the presence of sho but of i.o.--version of prosecution fishy--section 57--non-compliance of--effect of--prosecution version not reliable--trial court order set-aside--appeal accepted.;last but not the least, there is nothing on the record to show the compliance of section 57 of the act. the investigating officer was required, within forty-eight hours of the arrest and seizure, to make a full report of it. there is nothing on the record to prove that the required information was sent in terms of the said section. - labour & services disability pension: [vikramajit sen, sanjiv khanna & s.l.bhayana,jj] army act (46 of 1950), section 192 & pension regulations for the army (1961), regulation. 173 claimant was on casual leave sustained injury which contributed to invalidation for military service claim for disability pension held, to claim disability pension by military personnel it requires to be established that the injury or fatality suffered by the concerned claimant bears a causal connection with military service. secondly, if this obligation exists so far as discharge from the armed force on the opinion of a medical board the obligation and responsibility a fortiori exists so far as injuries and fatalities suffered during casual leave are concerned. thirdly, as a natural corollary it is irrelevant whether the concerned personnel was on causal or annual leave at the time or at the place when and where the incident transpired. this is so because it is the causal connection which alone is relevant. fourthly, since travel to and fro the place of posting may not appear to everyone as an incident of military service, a specific provision has been incorporated in the pension regulations to bring such travel within the entitlement for disability pension if an injury is sustained in this duration. fifthly, it cannot be said that each and every injury sustained while availing of casual leave would entitle the victim to claim disability pension. sixthly, provisions treating casual leave as on duty would be relevant for deciding questions pertaining to pay or to the right of the authorities to curtail or cancel the leave. lastly, injury or death resulting from an activity not connected with military service would not justify and sustain a claim for disability pension. this is so regardless f whether the injury or death has occurred at the place of posting or during working hours. this is because attributability to military service is a factor which is required to be established. - form was filled in, it is clearly borne out from the statement of the moharir malkhana and so also from the entries made by him in the malkhana register (ex.jaspal singh, j. (1) the appellant stands convicted and sentenced under section 20 of the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances act. i am inclined to accept the appeal on the following three grounds.(2) through the station house officer and so also the investigating officer state that after the recovery of charas from the possession of the appellant the c.f.s.l. form was filled in, it is clearly borne out from the statement of the moharir malkhana and so also from the entries made by him in the malkhana register (ex.pw 23/a) that no c.f.s.l. form was actually deposited with him and that even when sample was sent to the c.f.s.l. that form was not handed over to the constable carrying the sample parcel. the position thus boils down to this that though c.f.s.l. form may be taken to have been filled in, it can neither be taken to have been deposited with moharir malkhana nor can it be taken to have been sent to the central forensic science laboratory. in chameli devi v. state, 1993 jcc 293 and mool chand v. state, 1993 (2) d l 14 ;(1993) ccr 964, it was held by this court that if the c.f.s.l. form is neither deposited in the malkhana nor sent to the c.f.s.l. along with the parcel containing the sample it would be sufficient to give the accused the benefit of doubt. in mool chand's case, referred to above, the learned single judge had placed reliance on two other judgments, namely lachho devi v. state, 1990 (2) c.c. cas 395 and anup joshi v. state, 1990 (2) c.c. cas 314.(3) the second ground which has persuaded upon me to acquit the accused is the fact that though it is claimed that the station house officer was leading the raiding party and was present at the time of the alleged recovery, he did not put his own seal on the parcel prepared after the recovery. the only seal which was put on the parcel was that of the investigating officer. this lapse makes the prosecution version look fishy.(4) the third ground is the joining of amrit lal in the raiding party. it is claimed that he joined the raiding party and witnessed the recovery. in his cross-examination he has deposed that he had not appeared as a prosecution witness in any other case. the learned counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention to prakash singh v. state, crl. a. 107/92 decided by this court on 9th may, 1994 which shows that this very investigating officer had joined amrit lal as a public witness in the case of parkash singh also. the alleged recovery in prakash singh's case was prior to the alleged recovery in the present case. i may hasten to add that it was not disputed by the learned counsel for the state that amrit lal who appeared as a prosecution witness in this case was none other but the same person who had appeared as a prosecution witness in prakash singh's case. it is unfortunate that the same team led by the same investigating officer had joined amrit lal in a case under the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances act earlier too, and yet this fact was not admitted. this makes me raise grave suspicion against the prosecution version more so because in prakash singh's case it was not found that amrit lal was a stock witness of the police. (5) last but not the least, there is nothing on the record to show the compliance of section 57 of the act. the investigating officer was required, within forty-eight hours of the arrest and seizure, to make a full report of it. there is nothing on the record to prove that the required information was sent in terms of the said section. (6) keeping in view what has been noticed by me above i am not inclined to place reliance on the prosecution version. i, thereforee, accept the appeal and set aside the order of conviction and sentence by giving the appellant the benefit of doubt. let him be set free forthwith if he is not required in any other case. fine, if deposited be refunded.