STATE OF PUNJABversusMALKIAT SINGH

                            [2009] 7 S.C.R. 63

r                                                                    A
                           STATE OF PUNJAB
                                    V.
                            MALKIAT SINGH
                    Criminal Appeal No. 190 of 2005
                             APRIL 21, 2009
                                                                     B
              [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR
                           GANGULY, JJ]
,Ir"

             Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
       - s. 15 - Contraband articles recovered from room belonging
       to 'P' and allegedly leased out to respondent - Trial Court   c
       convicted respondent - High Court acquitted him on grounds
       that the alleged lease deed was not brought on record; that 'P'
       was not prosecuted and that there was nothing to show that
;
       respondent was having possession over the room in question ·
       - On appeal, held: No reason was indicated as to why 'P' was D
       not examined and why during investigation, copy of the lease
       deed, showing the room to have been leased out to
       respondent, was not brought on record - No evidence was
       adduced to show possession of the room by respondent -
       Investigation was done in a shoddy manner - Judgment of E
       the High Court did not suffer from any infirmity which warranted
       intetference.

"            Contraband articles were recovered from a room
       belonging to one 'P' and allegedly leased out to the
       respondent. The trial court convicted the respondent F
       under s.15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
       Substances Act, 1985. The High Court acquitted the
       respondent on grounds that the alleged lease deed was
       not brought on record; that even though the contraband
       articles were recovered from the room belonging to 'P', G
       he was not prosecuted and that there was nothing to
"      show that the respondent was having possession over
       the room in question. Hence the present appeal.

                                   63                                H
        64        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 . [2009] 7 S.C.R.


    A        Dismissing the appeal, the Court                               "
           HELD:. There was no reason indicated as to why 'P'
      was not examined and why during investigation, copy of
      the lease deed, showing the room to have been leased
      out to the respondent-accused, was not brought on
    B record. No evidence was adduced to show possession
      of the room by respondent who was admittedly not the
      owner of the room. In addition, no question regarding the             ...
      possession of the room in question was put which added
      to vulnerability of the prosecution version. Looking from
    c any angle, the judgment of the High Court does not suffer
      from any infirmity to warrant interference. [Paras 5, 6]
      [65-G; 66-A; 66-B]
             CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
        No. 190 of 2005
    D
              From the Judgement and Order dated 20.01.2004 of the
        Hon'ble High Court of States of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
        in Criminal Appeal No. 20-DB of 2003.
             Kuldip Singh, R.K. Pandey, T.P. Mishra, H.S. Sandhu,
    E   Sanjay Katyal, for the Appellant.
              J.L. Gupta, Nidhsh Gupta, Tarun Gupta, S. Janani, with them
        for the Respondents.
             The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
'   F        DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
            Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division
      Bench of Punjab and Haryana High court directing acquittal of
      the respondent who faced trial for alleged commission of offence
    G punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and
      Psycotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short the 'NDPS Act').
      The respondent was sentenced to undergo twelve years rigorous
      imprisonment and to pay fine of rupees one lakh with default
      stipulation by learned Sessions Judge, Ludhiana.

    H        In appeal the High Court found that there were several
                    STATE OF PUNJAB V. MALKIAT SINGH                   65
                           [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT]

        factors which justified the acquittal of the respondent. The first   A
        was that the recovery was from a room near a tube well
        belonging to one Pritam Singh. Though the prosecution claimed
        that the room was under the control of the respondent, no
        evidence was led in that regard. The stand of the prosecution
        was that the room in question was leased out to the present          B
        respondent for the purpose of storing the contraband articles.
  r-·   That lease deed if any was even not brought on record. If the
        narcotics have been recovered from room belonging to Pritam
        Sing h's he was not prosecuted. There was nothing to show that
        the accused was having possession over the room in question.         c
        Question in that regard was put to him. With theses conclusions
        the High Court directed acquittal.
             The High Court was of the view that in case of such serious
        nature, the investigating agency was not very serious in
        conducting the investigation. It noted with concern that drug        D
        peddlers who are corroding the health of the nation are allowed
        to go scot free because of the ineffective investigation and for
        not collecting evidence to secure their conviction.
             Learned counsel for the appellant State submitted that the
        presence of the respondent near the spot of occurrence had           E
        been established and therefore it can be safely said that he
,,.     was connected with the storage of the contraband articles. In
        response, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that
        even no question was put to the accused in his examination
        under ec.313 of the Code whether he was in possession or             F
        control of the room from where the contraband articles were
        recovered.
              We find that the High court has noted with concern the.
        shoddy investigation which was done. There was no reason
                                                                          G
        indicated as to why Pritam Singh was not examined and why
        during investigation copy of the lease deed, showing the room
        to have been leased out to the respondent-accused, was
        obtained from Pritam Singh, if that was there. There is no reason
        as to why the same was not brought on record. Additionally, no
                                                                          H
    66       SUPREME COURT REPORTS              (2009] 7 S.C.R.


A evidence was adduced to show the possession of the room by
  respondent who was admittedly not the owner of the room. In
  addition, as is rightly contended by learned counsel for the
  respondent, no question regarding the possession of the room
  in question was put which added to the vulnerability to the
B prosecution version.
         Looking from any angle, the Judgment of the High Court
    does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interferene.
         Above being the position, the appeal fails and is
    dismissed.

    B.B.B.                                   Appeal dismissed.