STATE OF PUNJABversusSURJIT SINGH & ANR.

                          [2009] 7 S.C.R. 306


A                      ' S-TATE OF PUNJAB                              ,,;i

                                   v.
                       SURJIT SINGH & ANR.
                  Criminal Appeal No. 646 of 2005

                           APRIL 22, 2009
B
            [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR
                         GANGULY, JJ.]
         Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
  - S. 15 - Prosecution under - Case based on evidence of
c offic;ial witnesses -- Independent witness to recovery and seizure
  of contraband, not examined - Reason for non-examination
  stated that he was won over - Conviction by trial court -
  Acquittal by High Court on the ground that conviction on the
  basis of official
                 .- witnesses not correct - Independent- witness
D even if won over, should have been examined - On appeal,
  held: Accused liable to be convicted - Evidence of official
                                                                          .....
  witnesses does not suffer from any infirmity
       CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
E No. 646 of 2005
          From the Judgement and Order dated 22.08.2003 of the
     Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in
     Criminal Appeal No. 80-SB of 2002 (O&M).

F         Seeraj Bagga (for Kuldip Singh), for the Appellant.
          Ex-parte, for the Respondent.
          The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
          DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
G.
          1. In this appeal challenge to the judgment of a learned
                                                                              ;,...._
     Single Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court directing
     acquittal of the respondents who faced trial for alleged
     commission of offence punishable under Section 15 of the

H                                 306
                            STATE OF PUNJAB V SURJIT SINGH & ANR.                307
                                     [DR. ARIJIT PA'SAYAT, J]
                                                                        _,
           I'-·   Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, A
                  'the Act')'. Each of the respondents was sentenced to undergo
                  10 years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of
                  Rs.1,00,000/-with default stipulation.
                          2. Learned Judge, Special Court, Sangrur had found them
                   guilty. Prosecution version as unfolded during the trial was as      B
                  ·follows.

                        3. Dn 11.7.2000, Assistant Sub Inspector Vijay Kumar
                  along with other police officials was on patrol duty in the area of
                  village Nagra. Karnail Singh independent witness met them             c
                  there and he was joined in the police party. Thereafter, they
                  proceeded towards VillageAkberpura. When they reached near
                  the bridge of minor canal, then the respondents were seen sitting
                  on the gunny bags. On seeing the police party, they succeeded
                  in running away. However, they were identified by Kashmir

-·                Singh, Head Constable and Baljit Singh, Head Constable.
                       4. Assistant Sub Inspector Vijay Kumar sent wireless
                  message to Raj Bachan Sandhu, Deputy Superintendent of
                                                                                        D




                  Police, Sangrur to reach at the spot and under his directions
                  Assistant Sub Inspector Vijay Kumar conducted search of the           E
                  bags. On search, the bags were found to contain poppy husk.
    '             The bags were four in number. Two samples of 250grams each
                  of poppy husk were taken from each 0fthe bags. The remainder
                  in each biig was found to be 29.500 kilograms. The samples
        ----
                  and the remaining poppy husk in the four bags were separately         F
                  sealed with the seal of 'VK' and seal after use was handed over
                  to Karnail Singh. They were taken into possession vide memo
I
    /
                  Ex.PA attested by the witnesses.
                        5. Assistant Sub Inspector Vijay Kumar sent ruqa Ex.PE,
                  to the police station for registration of the case, on the basis of G
    ~             which formal first information report Ex.PA/1 was recorded by
                  Assistant Sub Inspector Surjit Sfngh. He prepared rough site
    ~             plan, Ex.PF, with correct marginal notes. On return; he produced
                  the case property and witnesses before the Station House
                  Officer Amit Joshi, who after verifying the facts, put his own seal H
    308       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2009] 7 S.C.R.


A   bearing impression "AJ", and then on his clarifications, Assistant
    Sub Inspector Vijay Kumar deposited the case property with
    Mahar Head Constable Jaswinder Singh.
          6. Parma, respondent, was arrested on 17.4.2000 while
    respondent Surjit Singh was arrested on 27.7.2000. After receipt
8   of the report of the Chemical Examiner, Ex.PH, the challan was
    put up in the court.

          7. As accused persons pleaded innocence, trial was held.
          8. In order to prove the allegations, prosecution examined
C   seven witnesses. Trial Court found accused guilty and convicted
    them.
          9. The High Court set aside the judgment of conviction, as
    recorded by the learned trial Judge, solely on the ground that
    only official witnesses were examined and no independent
0
    witness was examined. Prosecution during trial made a
    statement before the Court that Karnail Singh was not being
    examined as he had been won over. The High Court held that
    the evidence of the official witnesses was not sufficient to record
E   conviction. Even if the aforesaid Karnail Singh had been won
    over, the prosecution should have examined him. With these
    conclusions, the appeal was allowed and the acquittal was
    directed.
          10. Learned counsel for the appellant-State submits that
F   the view of the High Court was clearly unsustainable. Conviction
    can be recorded even on the basis of the official witnesses.
          11. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondents
    in spite of service of notice.

G         12. In the instant case, the reason as to why no independent
    witness was examined was clearly stated to the court. It was
    specifically stated that one Karna ii Singh, who was a part of the
    recovery and seizure was won over and, therefore, there was
    no purpose in examining him.
H         13. So far as the examination of only official witnesses is
                     STATE OF PUNJAB V. SURJIT SINGH & ANR.              309
                              [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT J.]

            concerned, it is to be noted that the only witness who was a A
            party to the recovery and the seizure was given up as he was

..          won over. The High Court's conclusion that he should have been
            examined even if that was so, is clearly not sustainable. No
            material was brought on record by the defence to discredit the
            evidence of the official witnesses. The ultimate question is B
            whether the evidence of the official witnesses suffers from any ·
            infirmity. In the instant case, nothing of that nature could be
            pointed out. As noted above, official witnesses stated the reason
            as to why Karnail Singh was not being _examined. Therefore,
            the High Court was in error in holding that the prosecution version C
            became vulnerable due to non-examination of any person who
            was not an official witness. The impugned judgment of the High
            Court is clearly unsustainable and is set aside. The respondents
            shall surrender to custody forthwith to serve the remainder of
            the sentence .
     .,,.        14. The appeal is allowed.

            K.K.T.                                         Appeal allowed.