Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amit Kumar Alias Meetu vs State Of Haryana on 23 January, 2025
Author: Sureshwar Thakur
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011037-DB
CRA-D-916-2022 (O&M) 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
CRA-D-916-2022 (O&M)
Reserved on: 20.12.2024
Date of Decision: 23.01.2025
Amit Kumar alias Meetu ......Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana ....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI
Present: Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for
Mr. Kushagra Mahajan, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. P.P.Chahar, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
****
SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.
1. The appeal (supra) is directed against the impugned verdict, as
made on 19.09.2022, upon Session Case (NDPS) No.13 of 2021, by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri wherethrough
in respect of charges drawn against the accused for offence punishable under
Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
(hereinafter referred to as “the NDPS Act“), the learned trial Judge
concerned, proceeded to record a finding of conviction against the accused-
appellant.
2. Furthermore, through a separate sentencing order of even date,
the learned trial Judge concerned, imposed upon, the convict-Amit Kumar
alias Meetu both sentence(s) of imprisonment as well as sentence(s) of fine,
but in the hereinafter extracted manner:
Offence under Sentence awarded Amount of fine Sentence in default of
section imposed payment of fine
22 of NDPS Act R.I. for a period of Rs. 1,00,000/- R.I for a period of six
eleven years months.
1 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 25-01-2025 13:01:12 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011037-DBCRA-D-916-2022 (O&M) 2
3. The period of detention undergone by the convict, during the
investigation, and, trial of the case, was, in terms of Section 428 of the
Cr.P.C., rather ordered to be set off, from the above imposed sentence(s) of
imprisonment.
4. The accused-convict becomes aggrieved from the above drawn
verdict of conviction, besides also, becomes aggrieved from the consequent
therewith sentences of imprisonment, and, of fine as became imposed, upon
him, by the learned convicting Court concerned, and, hence has chosen to
institute thereagainst the instant criminal appeal.
Factual Background and Investigation proceedings
5. The genesis of the prosecution case, becomes embodied in the
appeal/FIR, to which Ex.P1 is assigned. The narrations carried in Ex.P1, are
that on 11.12.2020, ASI Satnam Singh alongwith ESI Jasbir Singh, LEHC
Saraswati, Constable Amarjeet and Constable Sandeep Kumar were present
at Ledi Turn, Bilaspur in connection with patrolling in a government vehicle
bearing registration No.HR-02-AL-1400 being driven by EHC Pankaj
Kumar. Meanwhile, ASI Satnam Singh received secret information that
Amit Kumar alias Meetu resident of Bilaspur who had been indulged in
selling of intoxicating medicines, was standing near Court Complex,
Bilaspur waiting for someone to sell the intoxicating medicines. If a raid
would be conducted, he could be apprehended red handed. Believing the
information as correct, ASI Satnam Singh informed the other police
officials. Notice under Section 42 of the NDPS Act was prepared and
information was sent to Ashish Chaudhary, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of
Police through LEHC Saraswati. Thereafter, ASI Satnam Singh sent a rukka
through Constable Sandeep Kumar in the police station, on the basis of
2 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 25-01-2025 13:01:13 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011037-DB
CRA-D-916-2022 (O&M) 3
which, the present FIR under Section 22/61/85 of the NDPS Act was lodged.
After receipt of information, Sub Inspector Surinder Kumar reached at the
spot where ASI Satnam Singh was present. ASI Satnam Singh gave a copy
of notice under Section 42 of the NDPS to Sub Inspector Surinder Kumar.
Thereafter, search of police officials was conducted by Sub Inspector
Surinder Kumar but nothing incriminating was found in their possession.
Search of Sub Inspector Surinder Kumar was conducted by ESI Jasbir Singh
but nothing incriminating was also found in his possession. Thereupon, after
constituting a raiding party, they reached at the spot. On the signal of secret
informant, accused was apprehended. On enquiry, he disclosed his name as
Amit Kumar alias Meetu. Notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was
served upon the accused, who gave his consent for his search from a
Gazetted Officer. Then, Tarun Sahota, Tehsildar, Bilaspur was contacted on
telephone. After some time, he came at the spot. Thereupon, search of
polythene was conducted. Upon its search, 54 packets Marka Simplex C
containing 432 capsules were recovered. Thereafter, Parveen Kumar, Drugs
Control Officer was called who submitted his report that the weight of
recovered tablets/capsules is 283.39 gram i.e. commercial quantity. During
investigation, accused Amit Kumar alias Meetu suffered disclosure
statement that he had purchased the said intoxicant medicines from accused
Shahrukh. Section 29 of the NDPS Act was inserted. Statement of witnesses
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded. Site plan of the place of
occurrence was prepared. Accused Shahrukh Khan was arrested. After
completion of investigation, the final report under Section 173 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 was presented in the Court.
6. The copy of the challan and other documents relied upon by the
3 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 25-01-2025 13:01:13 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011037-DB
CRA-D-916-2022 (O&M) 4
prosecution were supplied to the accused. After being prima facie satisfied
of the allegations, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at
Jagadhri, framed charges against accused Amit Kumar alias Meetu under
Section 22 of the NDPS Act, whereas, co-accused Shahrukh Khan was
charge-sheeted under Section 22 read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act, on
06.09.2021, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Trial Proceedings
7. In support of its case, the prosecution examined eighteen
witnesses, and, thereafter the learned Public Prosecutor concerned, closed
the prosecution evidence. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the
learned trial Judge concerned, drew proceedings, under Section 313 of the
Cr.P.C., but thereins, the accused pleaded innocence, and, claimed false
implication. No evidence was in led by the accused in their defense.
8. As above stated, the learned trial Judge concerned, proceeded to
convict the accused-Amit Kumar alias Meetu for the charge (supra), as
became drawn against him, and, also as above stated, proceeded to, in the
hereinabove manner, impose the sentence(s) of imprisonment, as well as of
fine, upon the convict. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri made a verdict of acquittal qua his co-accused
Shahrukh Khan.
Submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant.
9. The learned counsel for the aggrieved convict-appellant has
argued before this Court, that the impugned verdict of conviction, and,
consequent therewith order of sentence, require an interference. He supports
the above submission on the ground, that it is based on a gross
misappreciation, and, non-appreciation of evidence germane to the charge.
4 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 25-01-2025 13:01:13 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011037-DB
CRA-D-916-2022 (O&M) 5
Submissions of the learned State counsel
10. On the other hand, the learned State counsel has argued before
this Court, that the verdict of conviction, and, consequent therewith
sentence(s) (supra), as become imposed upon the convict, is well merited,
and, does not require any interference, being made by this Court in the
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. Therefore, he has argued that the instant
appeal, as preferred by the convict, be dismissed.
Analysis of the case
11. Through recovery memo Ex.P6, the recovery of the contraband
became allegedly recovered from the attache concerned. In proof of the
prosecution case, Inspector Surinder Kumar, stepped into the witness box as
PW-10, and, in his examination-in-chief, he made speakings thereins, which
concur with the contents of the appeal FIR, to which Ex.P1 is assigned.
However, only the unexamined bulk became produced. The production of
the unexamined bulk does not prove the charge as only upon the
examination of the stuff inside the said produced parcel, thus the charge
would become proven.
12. The prosecution though has been able to lead cogent evidence,
in proof of the recovery of the seizure, thus being effected from the attache
which was in possession of the present appellant, and, the same thus being
sealed with the relevant seal impressions. Moreover, though the prosecution
has also been able to cogently establish, that the sealed cloth parcels, became
deposited in the malkhana concerned. In addition, though the prosecution
has been able to establish, that the case property travelled in an untampered
condition to the FSL concerned.
13. A reading of the report (Ex.PX), as made by the FSL concerned,
5 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 25-01-2025 13:01:13 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011037-DB
CRA-D-916-2022 (O&M) 6
whereto the relevant seizure became sent for an examination being made of
the stuff inside the sealed cloth parcels, though reveals, that the examined
stuff inside the sealed cloth parcels, as became sent to it for examination,
thus being Tramadol, Dicyclomine & Chlorphineramine. The said report
is ad verbatim extracted hereinafter.
“x x x x
Description of articles contained in parcels.
Parcel No. No. and seal Description of articles/samples
impression
1. 1-HS One sealed cloth parcel Bearing bar code – 20865-
201231-868636
Sample marked here as N-2215/2020
Sample-1: 54 x 2 Capsules of SIMPLEX C + make,
Mfd. by Neutec Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., Batch No.
SMC-20031, labeled to contain Tramadol-Hcl-50
mg, Chlorphineramine – 4 mg. & Dicyclomine
Hcl-10 mg/Capsule.
Average weight of a capsule : 0.664 g per capsule.
Analytical Techniques Applied :-
Colour tests, TLC & GCMS techniques.
Based upon the above examination the results obtained
are as under.
Results of Analysis
1. Tramadol, Dicyclomine & Chlorphineramine were
detected in the sample 1.
Notes :-
1. The opinion relates to the analyzed sample only.
2. After examination the remnants of the sample alongwith its
original wrapper were sealed with the seal of AD General
FSLH.”
14. Be that as it may, though a reading of the report (supra) of the
FSL also discloses, that the sealed cloth parcels, became received there,
hence with the seal impressions thereons being intact. However, the
chemical examiner at the FSL concerned, after making examinations of the
stuff inside the sealed cloth parcels, and, thereafter his drawing the report
6 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 25-01-2025 13:01:13 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011037-DBCRA-D-916-2022 (O&M) 7
(supra), though mentions in the report Ex.PX, about his re-enclosing the
examined stuff inside the cloth parcels, and, his thereons affixing the seals of
the FSL concerned.
15. The above was required to be mandatorily done and though was
done, as, thereupon the imperatively required to be proven, thus unbroken
links (supra) in the chain of incriminatory evidence, commencing from the
seizure being made from the offending attache, through recovery memo
Ex.P6, and, lasting upto the production of the examined case property in
Court, but becomes convincingly proven, thus to remain unsnapped or
unbroken. Moreover, prima facie in the above event, thus the charge drawn
against the accused may be concluded to become cogently established.
However, as above stated, though the chemical examiner concerned, after
making examination(s) of the stuff inside, the sealed cloth parcels, he re-
enclosed the examined stuff inside the cloth parcels, and, also though he
further embossed thereons, rather the seals of the FSL concerned.
16. Be that as it may, subsequently the examined stuff was required
to be returned to the office wherefrom it travelled to the FSL concerned,
whereafter it was required to be both produced in Court, and, also was also
required to be then shown to the prosecution witnesses concerned.
17. Since in paragraph no. 35 of the judgment rendered by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in “Noor Aga V. State of Punjab and another“
Criminal Appeal No.1034 of 2008, decided on 09.07.2008, paragraph
whereof becomes extracted hereinafter, thus become spelt the imperative
sine qua non, rather requiring to become cogently proven hence for therebys
the charge drawn against the accused becoming declared to become
unflinchingly proven. However, since after the examination(s) being made of
7 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 25-01-2025 13:01:13 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011037-DBCRA-D-916-2022 (O&M) 8
the stuff inside the sample parcels, thus by the FSL concerned, rather the
latter though did re-enclose them in the sealed cloth parcels, besides also
embossed thereons the seal of the FSL concerned. However, when the
examined sample parcel(s) never became returned to the office wherefrom
they generated nor when they became produced in Court rather for the
examined samples being then shown to the prosecution witnesses concerned.
“35. The High Court proceeded on the basis that non-production
of physical evidence is not fatal to the prosecution case but the fact
remains that a cumulative view with respect to the discrepancies in
physical evidence creates an overarching inference which dents the
credibility of the prosecution. Even for the said purpose the
retracted confession on the part of the accused could not have been
taken recourse to.”
18. Consequently, the expostulation of law carried in verdict
(supra), remains unsatiated thereby the accused become entitled to an
acquittal.
19. Moreover, reiteratedly in terms of the expostulations of law
made in “Noor Aga V. State of Punjab and another” Criminal Appeal
No.1034 of 2008, decided on 09.07.2008, there was also a further
requirement that the examined stuff which was re-enclosed in the cloth
parcel(s) by the Chemical Analyst and whereons become affixed the seals of
the FSL concerned, thus becoming initially returned to the Malkhana
concerned, and thereafter becoming produced in Court, for the same
becoming then shown to the prosecution witnesses concerned, rather for
therebys the charge becoming efficaciously proven. However, in the instant
case there is no such evidence.
20. The said view is also supported by a judgment rendered in case
titled as “Gaunter Edwin Kircher V. State of Goa, Secretariat Panji, Goa”,
Criminal Appeal No.642 of 1991, decided on 16.03.1993, relevant
paragraph whereof becomes extracted hereinafter.
8 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 25-01-2025 13:01:13 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011037-DB
CRA-D-916-2022 (O&M) 9
“J. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Sections
52A and 53 – Customs Act, 1962, Section 110(IB) – Physical
evidence – Case Property – Recovery of heroin from accused – Case
property destroyed and not produced – Physical evidence relating to
three samples taken from the bulk amount of heroin were also not
produced – Bulk quantity was destroyed the samples were essential
to be produced and proved as primary evidence for the purpose of
establishing the fact of recovery of heroin as envisaged under
Section 52A of the Act.”
Final order
21. The result of the above discussion, is that, this Court finds merit
in the appeal, and, is constrained to allow the same. Consequently, the
appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment convicting, and, sentencing
the appellant, and, as becomes recorded by the learned trial Judge
concerned, is quashed, and, set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the
charge framed against him. The fine amount, if any, deposited by him, be,
in accordance with law, refunded to him. The personal, and, surety bonds of
the accused shall stand forthwith cancelled, and, discharged. The case
property be dealt with, in accordance with law, but after the expiry of the
period of limitation for the filing of an appeal. The appellant, if in custody,
and, if not required in any other case, be forthwith set at liberty. Release
warrants be prepared accordingly.
22. Records be sent down forthwith.
23. The miscellaneous application(s), if any, is/are also disposed of.
(SURESHWAR THAKUR)
JUDGE
(KULDEEP TIWARI)
23.01.2025 JUDGE
kavneet singh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
9 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 25-01-2025 13:01:13 :::
[ad_1]
Source link