Criminal Appeal No.2503-SB of 2004 v. State of Punjab

In the meantime, a Cantessa car bearing registration No.DNJ-2016 was noticed coming from the side of Village Chhapa. Sub Inspector Balwinder Singh stopped the car by giving signal. The said car was immediately stopped. Two unidentified persons came out of the car and ran away towards backside. Sub Inspector Balwinder Singh and other police official persons followed them. The said persons were successful in running away from the spot. The Sub Inspector conducted search of the car. Two bags containing something were found on the back seat of the car. The bags were taken out. Poppy husk was found in the bags. Two samples of 250 grams each was separated from the bags. The samples and the remaining poppy husk contained in the bags were separately sealed and taken into possession by the police. The car, which was without documents, was also taken into possession. Ruqa was sent to the Police Station and on its basis formal First Information Report was registered.

Rough site plan of the place of recovery was prepared. During investigation of this case, Registration Certificate -3- Criminal Appeal No.2503-SB of 2004 and Insurance of the above-said car were taken into possession from accused-appellant Gursharan Singh alias Sarna. After completion of investigation and on receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner, challan against the accused was presented in Court. Charge was framed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 25 of the Act. He did not plead guilty to the charge and claimed trial. The trial Court, after recording evidence of the prosecution, statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in which he, inter alia, stated that he he had no concern with the Car in question and scrutinizing the evidence held that the prosecution was able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the appellant had allowed his car to be used for commission of the offence in this case.

The trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant, as mentioned above. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. Learned counsel for the appellant, inter alia, argued that in this case it cannot be said with certainty that the appellant was owner of the car in question. Further, the accused who were occupants of the car at the time of recovery of two bags of contraband poppy husk from the car having run away from the spot, the accused-appellant cannot -4- Criminal Appeal No.2503-SB of 2004 be fastened with the liability under Section 25 of the Act. According to the learned counsel, the charge under Section 25 of the Act against the accused-appellant is not proved by the prosecution and it entitles the accused to acquittal. After giving my careful thought to the argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant, I find sufficient force in the same.

In this case, as has been noticed above, the occupants of the car, had succeeded in running away from the spot after stopping the car in front of the police officials. Obviously, the police officials, while on patrol duty, are armed with sophisticated weapons. It is not believable that the accused would be able to dodge the police when the police party is having arms and ammunition in its possession and was present at the spot on a Government vehicle. Had the accused persons allegedly carrying poppy husk in the car in question been apprehended at the spot and had named the accused- appellant as the person having knowingly permitted the use of the car for the commission of the offence in question, the question would have been otherwise. It being not the case and the accused-persons who had allegedly used the car in question for carrying the contraband, as per evidence on record, having not been connected / related with the accused-appellant, it cannot be said that the accused-appellant is liable under Section 25 of the Act.

In view of the above, the charge under Section 25 of -5- Criminal Appeal No.2503-SB of 2004 the Act against the appellant is not proved beyond every reasonable doubt. Resultantly, I accept this appeal and acquit the appellant of the charge framed against him by giving him the benefit of doubt by setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and the sentencer order. April 23, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) JUDGE