TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 401
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ived by PW1 Pushpdeep Singh on 22.07.2007 at about 3.30 p.m. that two Sikh gentlemen in white Kurta Pyjama wearing yellow and light pink coloured turbans carrying approx. 5 Kg. of heroin in a hand bag would reach Kathunangal Bus Stop on Amritsar-Pathankot road at about 8.00 p.m. on 22.07.2007 on a private bus. This intelligence/information was reduced into writing, Ex.P1 and sent to Senior Intelligence Officer, Ramesh Sharma who directed surveillance of Kathunangal Bus Stop and for making arrangements for apprehending the consignment alongwith the persons carrying it vide Ex.P1/A. Pursuant thereto, necessary action was taken. At about 8.30 on 22.07.2007, PW1 Pushpdeep Singh alongwith his team noticed two Sikh gentlemen matching with the description in the intelligence/information alighting from a bus at Kathunangal Bus Stop. When asked to reveal their identity one of them, who was carrying a blue coloured hand bag, disclosed himself to be Rajinder Singh (appellant No.1). The other person disclosed his identity to be Sukhchain Singh (appellant No.2). When asked whether any narcotic/contraband was being carried in the hand-bag with Rajinder Singh, it was denied. On repeated questio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sparent adhesive tape and then packed in an off-white colour cotton cloth, stitched and then sealed over a paper slip bearing signatures of the accused, Panches and DRI officer with the seal of DRI. All five packets duly sealed were put in a tin box wrapped with a cotton cloth and sealed in the same way. International value of each packet was statedly Rs. 1 Crore. Packing material was separately packed and sealed in the same way. Mobile phone recovered from Rajinder Singh was also taken in possession, packed and sealed. Recovery memo, Ex.P5 dated: 22/23.07.2007 was prepared bearing signatures of PW1 Pushpdeep Singh attested by both the accused, Panches and PW4 Ramesh Sharma, Senior Intelligence Officer. Seal after use was given to the competent authority. Special report was sent to Joint Director, DRI, Ludhiana. Statements, Ex.P8 and P9 of accused Rajinder Singh and Sukhchain Singh were recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. Before recording their statements, caution was afforded to the accused that their statements so recorded can be used in any court of law as evidence. Statements Ex.P8 and P9 were made voluntarily without any pressure, duress or influence by Rajinder Singh ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... time Sarpanch again called him up that description of his physical appearance had been given to someone who would give him some material which he should bring to Kathunangal by bus where another person would meet him to whom the said articles should be handed over. Rajinder Singh asked his uncle Sukhchain Singh who resided in the same village and also plied one of his trucks, to accompany him. He revealed to Sukhchain Singh that they have to transport narcotic/psychotropic substance and they would gain much money. He revealed that he had been told by Sarpanch that he would be paid Rs. 10,000/- per packet for transporting the intoxicating packets. He also mentioned that Sukhchain Singh also worked as a driver for his vehicle and he paid Rs. 2500/- per month as salary to him. Both of them reached Vijaypur chowk at about 3.30 p.m. Within about five minutes a Hindu gentleman carrying a blue colour hand-bag introduced himself as Vicky and asked whether they have been sent by Sarpanch. Having replied in affirmative, he handed over the said blue hand-bag to the accused and directed them to go to the place by bus as told by Sarpanch. They reached Kathunangal at about 8.00 p.m. by a priva....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not understandable as to why the revenue officials kept waiting till 8/8.30 p.m. at Bus Stop Kathunangal. Accused could easily have been apprehended at an earlier point of time as in all probability information regarding starting point of journey etc. would also have been received by them. It is further urged that false implication of the appellants is proved by the fact that no independent witness was joined with the proceedings. So called independent witnesses Satnam Singh and Ashok Kumar had been given up as having been won over by the prosecution on 14.05.2008. It is only when the defence examined DW3 Satnam Singh, that witness PW5 Satnam Singh was examined after moving an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. Prosecution has propped up an impersonator in place of the real Satnam Singh who has, in fact, deposed as DW3. Furthermore, in case the recovery had actually been effected, at least the number of the bus in question from which the appellants had alighted or the transporter company running would be brought on record. No such step was taken by the prosecution. Neither the driver, conductor nor any of the passengers of the bus were associated with the proceedings. Convicti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act both of them revealed their complicity in the commission of the offence. Appellant Rajinder Singh has specifically stated that he was in dire financial straits. People whom he had promised to send abroad were pressing hard for return of their money. He had been working as a Travel Agent and used to send people to Germany through one Kuldip Singh Randhawa who used to pay him Rs. 20,000/- per person. Said Kuldip Singh Randhawa was not returning the money. He asked appellant Rajinder Singh to transport narcotic substance who did not agree initially. However, he succumbed as he has suffered great financial loss and could not even pay back his installments. Financial helplessness prodded him into this illegal trade. He was directed to go to Vijaypur chowk on 22.07.2007 where he would be handed over the narcotic substance which would be transported by him to Kathunangal Bus Stop. Appellant No.1 - Rajinder Singh told his uncle Sukhchain Singh, appellant No.2 about the work to be carried out and promised him a share in the spoils. Appellant No.2 admittedly worked as a driver on his vehicle at a salary of Rs. 2500/- per month. Similarly, appellant N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctions by appellant No.2 rather lends truthfulness to the same rather than detract therefrom as is sought to be argued by learned counsel for the appellants. Another argument pressed into service on behalf of the appellants is that so-called independent witness PW5 Satnam Singh had never witnessed the occurrence. Defence claims to have examined the original Satnam Singh son of Tara Singh as DW3. It is noted that prosecution has examined PW5 Satnam Singh son of late Shri Tara Singh as an independent witness who was present at the time of recovery of narcotics from the appellants. PW5 has completely supported the prosecution version. Though an attempt has been made to discredit the witness while cross-examining him but nothing material could be elicited in favour of the appellants. On the other hand DW3 Satnam Singh was unable to deny that his father had died about one year prior to his deposition which took place on 27.07.2009. Recovery in this case was effected on 22.07.2007 from the appellants. Independent witness Satnam Singh associated at the time of recovery is duly mentioned as son of 'late Shri Tara Singh'. Therefore, it is clear that Satnam Singh son of late Shri Ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... PW1 Pushpdeep Singh that case property was seen and signed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar. This fact was not mentioned in the inventory. Perusal of the record specifically Ex.P18 i.e., order dated 23.07.2007 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar reveals that he had signed on the parcels which were sealed with the seal of DRI though this fact is not mentioned in the inventory, Ex.P19. This omission by itself is not fatal to the prosecution case. It is borne out from the record that the case property was produced again on 24.04.2008 for authentication certificate under Section 110(1-B) of the Customs Act and it is specifically mentioned in the order, Ex.P28 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate that the samples were produced, duly seen and initialed by the Magistrate. Tampering is thus not evident from the above. Learned senior counsel for the appellants has additionally sought to attack the prosecution version on the ground that alleged secret information was received at about 3.30 p.m. on 22.07.2007 by the officials, there is no reason whatsoever for not having taken any action till 8.30 p.m. In case information had been received at about 3.30 p.m., there is no rea....