PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Gurjinder Singh @ Ginda
Vs.
State of Punjab
2023:PHHC:080546
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
FACT:
The present appeal challenges the verdict issued on August 1, 2019, in relation to NDPS Case No. 28 of 2018. This verdict was delivered by the learned Judge of the Special Court in Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar. The essence of the matter involves the accused facing charges under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act. In response, the trial Judge proceeded to render a guilty verdict against the accused. Furthermore, in a separate sentencing order dated August 7, 2019, the same trial Judge sentenced the convicted individual to ten years of rigorous imprisonment for violating Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act. Additionally, a fine of Rs. 100,000 was imposed on the convict, and in case of non-payment, an additional three-year rigorous imprisonment term was stipulated. The present appeal is specifically aimed at contesting the aforementioned verdict made on August 1, 2019, in NDPS Case No. 28 of 2018, by the learned Judge of the Special Court in Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, where the trial Judge found the accused guilty of an offense under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act. The trial Judge also delivered a separate sentencing order on August 7, 2019, sentencing the convict to ten years of rigorous imprisonment for the violation of Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act. Additionally, a fine of Rs. 100,000 was imposed on the convict, and failing to pay this fine would result in an additional three-year term of rigorous imprisonment.
COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION:
Since there were no observations made by the trial Judge during the presentation of Ex. MO1 and Ex. MO2 in court, and the FSL report also failed to specify that the examined material had been resealed in cloth parcels bearing the FSL seals, the following conclusions can be drawn: (a) The prosecution has not effectively connected the FSL report to Ex. MO1 and Ex. MO2; (b) The unsealed cloth parcels, Ex. MO1 and Ex. MO2, presented in court to support the FSL report, do not correspond to the examined material as stated in the report. As a result, the evidential strength of the FSL report weakens. There is also room to infer that either the items inside Ex. MO1 and Ex. MO2 were introduced after the fact, or the case property was tampered with. Furthermore, it’s possible that items other than those related to the charges against the accused were submitted to the court, casting doubt on the authenticity of the primary evidence needed to establish the charges against the accused. Consequently, this court is compelled to determine that the charges against the accused have not been convincingly proven.
“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- Srijan Garg
