TITLE: Kewal v State of Punjab
Decided On-: June 8, 2023
CRA-S-1238-SB-2004 (O&M)
CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr. N.S Shekhawat
INTRODUCTION – The instant case deals, an accusation under the NDPS Act has to be precise. Since the defense finds that to be a ground to disregard an accused caught in possession of illicit substance.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The current appellant and his co-accused were involved in the transportation and smuggling of poppy husk on February 26, 2000, and all the accused were present near the bridge of the water reservoir (also known as Sua in Punjab), within the area of village Ghurka, on that day, in case a raid was conducted. Inderjit Singh, PW6, the investigating officer, was present near the High School of village Ghurka at the time. The accused’s possession of a scooter was also disclosed. The investigating officer prepared a rukka and delivered it by hand to the police station via H.C. Harjinder Singh. On the basis of this, a formal FIR was filed in accordance with Section 15 of the NDPS Act. Along with them, an independent witness named Vijay Kumar sent Sajjan Singh Cheema, DSP, a message asking him to come to the scene. The remaining co-accused, seeing the police party, fled, but Vijay Kumar was able to identify them.
All the procedures duly performed by government officials were by the book.
COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION
The prosecution cross-examined 6 witnesses to help make its case. Facts presented before this Hon’ble court which led to file a FIR was filed, and the appellant and other people were discovered there. With 50 bags of poppy husk, the appellant was captured there. He also carried out the initial investigation. Following the conclusion of the prosecution’s case. At his defense, the appellant told this hon’ble court an entirely different tale. According to the defense attorney, the prosecution failed to file a form that was supposed to be completed on the spot in order to prevent tampering with the evidence. The defense has vehemently argued about the charged section against the accused The argument of the prosecution laid down that minor discrepancy cannot be ground to disregard the factual situation with definite testimonies produced before this Hon’ble court.
The court declared Section 42 of the NDPS Act would not apply to the facts of the current case because the recovery of the contraband had occurred from a “Public Place” as defined by Section 43 of the NDPS Act. According to Section 43 of the NDPS Act, a “Public Place” is any public conveyance, hotel, store, or other location that is intended for or accessible to the general public. The accused were seated in a “Public Place” when 50 bags of poppy husk were recovered, so there was no need to comply with Section 42 of the NDPS Act’s mandatory provisions, and the learned appellant’s counsel’s argument was without foundation. Reliance can be placed on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme. This Court has carefully perused the findings recorded by the learned trial Court and the same are liable to be upheld.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Steffi Desousa
