TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 516
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....als were present at the canal bridge on Surtia-Rori road, where he received a secret information to the effect that the accused are selling poppy straw in a vehicle bearing registration number GUD-4997 on a 'kacha path' at Rori- Jatana road and they can be apprehended if raid is conducted. Accordingly, a raid was conducted and the accused were found sitting in the jeep bearing registration number GUD-4997 at the aforesaid place. Major Singh, coaccused of the appellants, managed to slip away, whereas, the appellants were apprehend at the spot. They were found sitting upon two bags kept in the said jeep. Notices under Section 50 of the Act were served upon them but the appellants reposed faith upon the police officials. The search of the bags led to the recovery of poppy straw. One bag was containing 39 kg of poppy straw and the second bag was containing 36 kg of poppy straw. Two samples weighing 100 grams each were separated from each bag. The sample parcels and the bulk parcels were converted into separate parcels and sealed with the seal bearing impression 'CS'. The jeep alongwith weighing scale, two weights of 500 grams each were also recovered and taken into poss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re discrepancies and infirmities in the case of prosecution and the appellants have been falsely implicated on account of party faction. 11. On the contrary, while supporting the judgment of the learned trial Court, it has been argued by the learned State counsel that there is no requirement of law to join independent witnesses at the time of recovery; the provisions of Section 42 of the Act are not attracted in the instant case; the discrepancies or infirmities are inconsequential and the defence version as propounded by the appellants does not inspire confidence. The learned trial Court has recorded the findings on the basis of satisfactory and reliable evidence which do not call for any interference. 12. The deposition of official witnesses cannot be viewed with distrust or suspicion merely because of their official status unless or until, there are cogent grounds therefor. There is no provision of law which requires the presence of an independent witness at the time of search of a suspect. The case of the prosecution cannot be discarded merely on the score that no independent witness has been opted to be joined at the time of recovery. It is a matter of common observation t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nail Singh and others wherein, it has been laid down as following:- "The next question is whether Section 42 of the NDPS Act applies to the facts of this case. In our view Section 42 of the NDPS Act has no application to the facts of this case. Section 42 authorises an officer of the departments enumerated therein, who are duly empowered in this behalf, to enter into and search any such building, conveyance or place, if he has reason to believe from personal knowledge or information given by any person and taken down in writing that any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance etc. is kept or concealed in any building, conveyance or enclosed place. This power can be exercised freely between sunrise and sunset but between sunset and sunrise if such an officer proposes to enter and search such building, conveyance or enclosed place, he must record the grounds for his belief that a search warrant or authorization cannot be obtained without affording opportunity for the concealment of evidence or facility for the escape of an offender. Section 43 of the NDPS Act provides that any officer of any of the departments mentioned in Section 42 may seize in any public place or in transit ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mination of Inspector Nand Lal (PW4) wherein he has deposed to the effect that the seal was handed over back to him by ASI Jaswant Singh after a period of about 20 days from the date of recovery. However, the certified copies of the statements Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 indicate that he had used the seal bearing impression 'CS' in two other cases under the NDPS Act which were registered vide FIR No. 16 dated 07.02.2002 and FIR No. 17 dated 08.02.2002 i.e. within a period of 20 days from the date of present recovery. 17. The discrepancy pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants is inconsequential and does not affect the genuineness of the version of the prosecution. It is significant to note that the case property was deposited with MHC Kuldeep Singh (PW2) on 29.01.2002 and officer who had effected the recovery ceased to have any access to the same. Furthermore, the deposition of Constable Gurjit Singh (PW1), MHC Kuldeep Singh (PW2) and the report of FSL (Ex.PK) indicate that the sample parcel was delivered in the FSL on 05.02.2002 i.e. prior to the dates on which the seal was used by Inspector Nand Lal (PW4) in the other two cases. Furthermore, it cannot be expected from....