Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Hardeep Singh Versus State of Haryana

2016 (4) TMI 98 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Validity of Sentence order - Contravention in relation to poppy straw - punishment rewarded under Section 15 of the Act - Appellant contended non-compliance of section 42 of the Act which is mandatory - Held that:- as per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case, registration of First Information Report by SHO and communicating the same to Superintendent of Police would not constitute compliance of the provisions of Section 42 of the Act. The finding given by the trial Court that the sending .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

inal Appeal No.S-799-SB of 2004 - Dated:- 11-2-2016 - MR. INDERJIT SINGH, J For the Petitioner : Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Himmat Singh, Deputy Advocate General ORDER INDERJIT SINGH, J. This criminal appeal has been filed by Hardeep Singh-appellant challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 1.4.2004/3.4.2004 passed by learned Judge, Special Court, Karnal, whereby he has been held guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 15(b) of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

char, in connection with detection of crime. In the meanwhile, ASI Varinder Singh received a secret information that accused Hardeep Singh used to sell poppy straw at his house situated in the eastern side of the village and on that day he was selling the poppy straw at his residence. On this information, ASI Varinder Singh sent Ruqa' Ex.PA to the police station and conducted raid at the house of the accused after joining Joga Singh son of Asa Singh and Joga Singh son of Santokh Singh, but t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o the Tehsil Office, Nissing and produced them before Shri Lehna Singh, Naib Tehsildar. Then the search was made as per rules. 200 Grams of poppy straw was separated as sample from each of the bags and the remaining poppy husk on weighment came to be 19.800 Kgs. of each bag, which was put in those very bags. The parcels of the samples as well as remainder poppy husk were sealed with the seal of VS' and taken into police possession vide memo Ex.PE. On return to the Police Station, the case pr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ested. The statements of witnesses were recorded. After necessary investigation, the challan was presented in the Court. On presentation of challan, the trial Court finding prima facie case against the accused-appellant framed charge for the offence under Sections 15 of the Act, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 SI Bhagat Ram, the then SHO, Police Station Nissing, before whom the case property etc. was produced for ve .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Parmal Singh is the recovery witness, who was with the police party. He also deposed as per prosecution version. PW-6 ASI Varinder Singh is the Investigating Officer of this case, who deposed regarding conducting the investigation of this case. At the close of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and was confronted with the evidence of the prosecution, but he denied the correctness of the evidence and pleaded himself as innocent. He also stated that he has be .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the appellant mainly argued on one point that the compliance of Section 42 of the Act is mandatory and in the present case no compliance under Section 42 of the Act has been made. On the other hand, learned State counsel argued that the compliance under Section 42 of the Act has been made and it has been duly discussed in the judgment by the learned Judge, Special Court. He argued that the PWs have consistently deposed regarding prosecution version and there is nothing on the record to show tha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

no where shows that the secret information was recorded separately and then the report was sent under Section 42 of the Act to the Senior Officers before conducting raid at the house of the accused. In the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Darshan Singh v. State of Haryana, 2016(1) Law Herald (P&H) 225 (SC), after discussing the judgment of the Constitutional Bench in Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana, 2010 (2) Law Herald (SC) 991, it has been held as under:- 11. Having giv .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Act provides that a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first Class or any Magistrate of second Class specially empowered by the State Government may issue a warrant for the arrest of any person whom he has reason to believe to have committed any offence punishable under Chapter IV. Sub-section (2) of Section 41 refers to issue of authorisation for similar purposes by the officers of the Departments of Central Excise, Narcotics, Customs, Revenue Intelligence, etc. Sub-section (1) of S .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ing his reasons of belief. The two separate procedures noticed above are exclusive of one another. Compliance of one, would not infer the compliance of the other. In the circumstances contemplated under Section 42 of the NDPS Act the mandate of the procedure contemplated therein will have to be followed separately, in the manner interpreted by this Court in Karnail Singh's case (supra) and the same will not be assumed, merely because the Station House Officer concerned had registered a first .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t compliance of the mandate of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. 13. In aforesaid view of the matter, we are satisfied that Section 42 of the NDPS Act was not complied with at all, insofar as the present controversy is concerned. Thus viewed with conclusion (d) recorded in Paragraph 35 of the judgment rendered in Karnail Singh's case (supra), would fully apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case, and we are left with no other option, but to set aside the conviction and the sentence .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ort to the senior officers amounts to compliance is against the law. There is no dispute regarding the legal position that the provisions of Section 42 of the Act are mandatory. In some of the circumstances the compliance can be made by the Investigating officer after conducting the raid, if there are chances of the accused to fled away etc. as held in Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana (supra), which is as under:- 17. In conclusion, what is to be noticed is Abdul Rashid did not require literal c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

auses (a) to (d) of section 42(1). (b) But if the information was received when the officer was not in the police station, but while he was on the move either on patrol duty or otherwise, either by mobile phone, or other means, and the information calls for immediate action and any delay would have resulted in the goods or evidence being removed or destroyed, it would not be feasible or practical to take down in writing the information given to him, in such a situation, he could take action as p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ding of the information in writing and sending a copy thereof to the official superior may get postponed by a reasonable period, that is after the search, entry and seizure. The question is one of urgency and expediency. (d) While total non-compliance with requirements of subsections (1) and (2) of section 42 is impermissible, delayed compliance with satisfactory explanation about the delay will be acceptable compliance with section 42. To illustrate, if any delay may result in the accused escap .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version