Surinder Pal vs State Ofpb.

1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

CRA-S-574-SB-2004 (O&M)

Reserved on : 18.08.2026

Pronounced on : 30.10.2026

Surinder Pal
..... Appellant



VERSUS
State of Punjab
..... Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH

Argued by : Mr. Balram Sngh, Mr. Lakshya Goyal, Advocates and
Mr. Akashdeep Singh, Legal Aid Counsel, for the appellant.

Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.

*

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.


This is appeal against conviction.
2. It has been preferred by convict-Surinder Pal, who has been
held guilty for the commission of offence punishable under Section 15 of the
‘Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act’, hereinafter being
referred to as ‘NDPS Act’.
3. The above-named convict, hereinafter being referred to as
‘appellant’ only, is aggrieved of the judgment of conviction dated
28.02.2004, hereinafter being referred to as ‘impugned judgment’ only, and
also the order on the point of quantum of sentence dated 28.02.2004,
hereinafter being referred to as ‘impugned order’ only.
4. The abovementioned verdict was pronounced in a trial,
pertaining to FIR No.83 dated 28.04.2000, Police Station Nurmahal,
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.10.30 18:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

2
Jalandhar, for the commission of offence under Section 15 of NDPS Act. BY
virtue of impugned order, following sentences were awarded to the
appellant:-


Sentence



15 of NDPS Act
Offence under
Section
Rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to
pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default thereof to
further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of
six months.

5. Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that the FIR
of this case came into being at the instance of ‘SI Kulwant Singh’, who
reported that on 24.04.2000, when he along with other police officials was
present at Village Lakhanpal and was manning a check-post on canal bridge,
‘Jagdish Lal @Saddi’, an independent witness, came there. According to
above-named police officer, in the presence of ‘Jagdish Lal @Saddi’, a
Maruti van bearing registration No.DL4-CB-1412 was found to be
approaching the barricade, and for usual checking a signal was given to the
abovementioned vehicle to stop. The above-named police officer further
reported that when the signal to stop the car was given, ‘Chhinda’ s/o Boori
jumped out the van from its boot and fled from the spot, whereas remaining
two occupants of the car, namely ‘Parvinder Singh @Sonu’ (the driver) and
‘Harbhajan Lal’, were apprehended. As per above-named police officer,
when search of the van was conducted, it was found that in the above-
mentioned van, there were 10 bags, each containing 32 kg of poppy husk.
6. It was a case of the prosecution that pursuant on recovery of
abovementioned contraband, necessary formalities with regard to seizure &
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.10.30 18:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

3
sealing of contraband, lodging of FIR, and formal arrest of the accused were
completed, and further investigation taken up. According to prosecution,
during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer inspected the
spot, prepared rough site plan of the place of recovery, and completed usual
formalities of investigation. Thereafter, the final report under Section 173 of
CrPC was filed.
7. To discharge its burden, of proving charges against the
appellant, the prosecution in the instant case had relied upon documentary as
well as oral evidence. The documents proved and marked with exhibits, by
the prosecution were:-
Ex.PA - Affidavit of MHC Balkar Singh
Ex.PB - Affidavit of Ct. Nachhattar Singh
Ex.PC - Affidavit of HC Harpal Singh
Ex.PD &
- Affidavits with regard to sale of Maruti
PE
van bearing registration No.DL4-CB-
1412 to the accused
Ex.PF &
- Consent memos of ‘Harbhajan Lal’ (the
PK
co-accused)
Ex.PG &
- Consent memos of ‘Parvinder Singh’ (the
PL
co-accused)
Ex.PH - Seizure memo of contraband and Maruti
van
Ex.P1 to
- Seizure memo of 10 bags, containing
P10
poppy husk
Ex.PM - The information-memo sent to the police
station ( ruqqa )
Ex.PM/1 - Copy of First Information Report
Ex.PN - Rough site plan of the place of recovery
of contraband, with marginal notes
Ex.PO - Grounds of arrest served upon
‘Harbhajan Lal’ (the co-accused)
Ex.PP - Grounds of arrest served upon ‘Parvinder
Singh’ (the co-accused)
Ex.PQ - Report of Chemical Examiner

GAURAV THAKUR
2026.10.30 18:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

4
8. To provide support and corroboration to the above-mentioned
documentary evidence, as many as six witnesses were examined by the
prosecution. They were:-
PW-1 - MHC Balkar Singh
PW-2 - Ct. Nachhattar Singh
PW-3 - HC Harpal Singh
PW-4 - Gobind Ram
PW-5 - DSP Sajjan Singh Cheema
PW-6 - SI Kulwant Singh

9. Once the prosecution evidence had been recorded, the learned
trial Court completed all the essential formalities, enshrined under Section
313 CrPC. Thereafter, opportunity of defence evidence was afforded to the
appellant. In his defence evidence, the appellant examined only one witness,
i.e. ‘Jagdish Lal’ as DW-1.
10. When evidence of both the parties was over, the learned trial
Court gave opportunity to the learned public prosecutor and the learned
counsel for the appellants to address arguments. Thereafter, a judgment of
conviction, against the appellants, was pronounced. Accordingly, the
appellants were sentenced to undergo imprisonment, as detailed
hereinbefore.
11. Heard.
12. It has been contended on behalf of appellant that the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence, passed by the learned trial
Court were perverse and unsustainable. According to learned counsel for the
appellant, merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises, the unreliable
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.10.30 18:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

5
and self-contradictory evidence adduced by the prosecution was believed by
the learned trial Court. As per learned counsel for the appellant, the learned
trial Court failed to apply judicious mind to the facts of the case, and merely,
on the basis of conjectures and surmises, the finding of conviction of
appellant, for the commission of offence under Section 15 of NDPS Act,
was recorded.
13. The learned counsel for the appellant has further contended that
instant case is a case of no evidence, whatsoever, against the appellant, and
that an error of judgment was committed by the learned trial Court in
appreciation of prosecution evidence. According to learned counsel for the
appellant, there was no evidence to prove, even prima facie , that it was the
appellant, who was travelling in the car at the time of alleged recovery of
contraband or that he was in conscious possession thereof. With regard to
above, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that any reliable
witness, who was present on the spot at the time of alleged recovery, was not
examined to prove that the appellant was travelling in the same car, in which
the contraband was allegedly recovered. As per learned counsel for the
appellant, merely, on the basis of assumptions and presumptions, the learned
trial Court observed that charge of being in possession of 320 kg of
contraband, being transported in a van, had been successfully proved by the
prosecution.
14. The learned counsel for the appellant has also contended that in
the present case, the case set-out by the prosecution itself showed that an
independent witness was joined at the time of recovery of contraband, but
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.10.30 18:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

6
the abovementioned witness was not examined by the prosecution. As per
learned counsel for the appellant, the same person had appeared in the
witness-box as defence witness and testified that nothing was recovered in
his presence from the possession of appellant. According to learned counsel
for the appellant, in fact the deposition of DW-1, who stated that neither any
vehicle was checked nor any contraband was recovered in his presence,
demolished the very foundation of the prosecution case.
15. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the appellant
that even the official witnesses, namely ‘HC Varinder Singh’, who had
identified the appellant, was not examined during the course of trial, and that
‘ASI Baljit Singh’, who had arrested the appellant, too, was withheld
without any justification. It has also been contended by learned counsel for
the appellant that identity of the appellant was otherwise doubtful in view of
the fact that he was not apprehended on the spot, and that as per contents of
the FIR, the person, who allegedly fled from the spot, was ‘Chhinda’ s/o
Boori, whereas the name of the father of the appellant was ‘Chain Ram’. In
view of above, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that there
were very serious issues with regard to identity of the appellant as one of the
occupants of the vehicle, wherein the contraband was allegedly being
transported.
16. As per learned counsel for the appellant, despite
abovementioned contradictions, discrepancies and shortcomings in the
prosecution evidence, merely, on the basis of whims and fences, the learned
trial Court believed the prosecution story and therefore, there is immediate
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.10.30 18:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

7
need for interference and indulgence in the finding of conviction, recorded
by the learned trial Court. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel
for the appellant has relied upon the principles of law propounded by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Bothilal V/s The Intelligence
Officer Narcotics Control Bureau’ 2023(2) RCR (Criminal) 828 and by this
Court in the case of ‘Prithi Raj (Prithi Raj) & Anr. V/s State of Punjab’
CRA-S-2497-SB-2016.
17. The learned counsel for the respondent/State has controverted
the abovementioned arguments. It has been contended by learned counsel for
the respondent/State that instant case was a well-proved case, wherein each
and every component, supposed to be proved for bringing home guilt of the
appellant, was duly proved by the prosecution, and that on proper
appreciation of evidence, a right conclusion was drawn by the learned trial
Court. According to learned counsel for the respondent/State, there was no
illegality or perversity in the finding of conviction, recorded by the learned
trial Court against the appellant. In view of abovementioned arguments, the
learned counsel for the respondent/State has contended that there is no scope
for indulgence or interference in the findings of learned trial Court. As per
learned counsel for the respondent/State, the present appeal is devoid of
merit and deserves dismissal.
18. The record has been perused carefully.
19. In order to prove the story, set-out by the prosecution in its final
report under Section 173 CrPC, the prosecution had relied upon the
evidence, which comprised of the testimonies of five official witnesses,
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.10.30 18:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

8
along with the registered owner of the vehicle in question. Amongst them,
PW-1 MHC Balkar Singh was only a formal witness, who by virtue of his
affidavit, Ex.PA, deposed that the case property was deposited with him in
the store room ( Malkhana ) of the police station.
20. The next witness examined by the prosecution was ‘Ct.
Nachhattar Singh’. He was examined as PW-2. The PW-2, by virtue of
affidavit, Ex.PB, had testified that on 26.04.2000, he had sent the sample for
chemical analysis, and thereafter, handed over the receipt, thereof, to ‘MHC
Balkar Singh’.
21. The next witness, examined by the prosecution, was ‘HC
Harpal Singh’. He was examined as PW-3. The PW-3, too, was a formal
witness, who had deposed that on 24.04.2000, he had deposited the case
property along with sample with ‘MHC Balkar Singh’ in the store room of
police station.
22. The next witness examined by the prosecution was ‘Gobind
Ram’. He was a public witness. He was examined as PW-4. However, the
role of PW-4 was very limited. According to PW-4, he was owner of the
Maruti van bearing registration No.DL4-CB-1412. As per PW-4, the
abovementioned vehicle was sold by him in June 1999 to ‘Parvinder’. The
documents with regard to sale of abovementioned vehicle to ‘Parvinder’
were proved by PW-4.
23. The next witness, examined by the prosecution, was ‘Sajjan
Singh Cheema’, the then DSP Batala. He was examined as PW-5. The PW-5
had supported the prosecution case by deposing that on 24.04.2000, while
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.10.30 18:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

9
posted as DSP Phillaur, he had received the wireless message of ‘SI Kulwant
Singh’. According to PW-5, in response to abovementioned message, he had
visited the spot, i.e. the culvert on minor canal at Daduwal road within the
area of Village Dhanni Pind. As per PW-5, when he reached the spot, he
found that a police party headed by ‘SI Kulwant Singh’ had apprehended
‘Parvinder Singh’ and ‘Harbhajan Lal’. According to PW-5, he had
disclosed his identity to the above-named persons and then search of the
bags, being carried in the van, was conducted. As per PW-5, 10 bags were
there in the abovementioned van, and that in each bag, there was 32 kg of
poppy husk. The PW-5 had supported the prosecution case with regard to the
fact that samples were extracted from the abovementioned gunny bags in his
presence.
24. The last witness, examined by the prosecution, was ‘SI Kulwant
Singh’. He was examined as PW-6. The PW-6 was the most material
witness, being head of the police team, which recovered the contraband. The
PW-6, in his examination-in-chief, thoroughly supported the prosecution
case by reproducing the allegations, which were identical to the contents of
final report under Section 173 CrPC and the FIR. It was specifically deposed
by the PW-6 in his examination that on signal to stop, the car was stopped
by its driver, namely ‘Parvinder Singh’, and that ‘Chhinda’ s/o Boori had
managed to flee from the spot by alighting through rear part of the van. Rest
of the story, deposed by PW-6, too, was identical to the contents of the FIR.
25. Since in the present case, the basic issue raised by the learned
counsel for the appellant was with regard to identity of the appellant, first of
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.10.30 18:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

10
all it has to be determined as to whether with the help of abovementioned
evidence, the prosecution had been successful in proving that it was the
appellant, who was travelling in the same vehicle, from which the
contraband was recovered.
26. Qua abovementioned aspect, except the testimony of PW-6,
there was no evidence on record. The deposition of PW-6 with regard to
identity of the appellant, without corroboration from independent witness,
was not reliable, particularly in view of the fact that being Investigating
Officer of the case, PW-6 was an interested witness.
27. In order to provide support and corroboration to the
abovementioned testimony of the Investigating Officer (PW-6), no witness,
whatsoever, was examined by the prosecution. Although in the present case,
another witness of recovery was examined by the prosecution as PW-5, but
PW-5 himself had deposed that he was not present on the spot when the
vehicle was stopped and the appellant fled from the spot.
28. Here it shall not be out of place to mention that as per
prosecution story, one independent witness, too, was present on the spot, at
the time of recovery. He was ‘Jagdish Lal’. However, the prosecution had
not examined the above-named witness in its evidence. To the contrary,
‘Jagdish Lal’ had appeared in the witness-box as DW-1 and deposed that in
his presence nothing was recovered, neither from the possession of co-
accused of the appellant, nor from the appellant. The DW-1, in his
examination-in-chief, demolished the prosecution case with regard to the
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.10.30 18:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

11
fact that the appellant was travelling in the same vehicle, from which the
contraband was recovered.
29. In the present case, it is also relevant to mention here that as per
contents of the FIR, the incident had taken place at about 08:00 pm, which
means that at the time of incident, when the abovementioned vehicle was
stopped and the appellant allegedly fled from the spot, it was already dark.
In such circumstances, in every probability headlights of the van must be on
and in such a situation, it was next to impossible for a person watching the
van from front side to recognize the face of the appellant, who alighted from
rear side of the vehicle and fled from the spot. In my considered opinion, in
the abovementioned circumstances, the deposition of PW-6 qua the fact that
he had recognized the appellant was surrounded by serious doubts.
30. In the present case, in order to dispel the abovementioned
suspicious circumstances, the best course available to the Investigating
Officer was to examine other members of the police team, who were present
on the spot at the time of recovery, but no such witness was examined by the
prosecution and for abovementioned lapse, no explanation was forthcoming
from prosecution side.
31. In the present case, another factor, which adds to the doubts
about the identity of the appellant, was that as per contents of the FIR and
deposition of PW-6, the name of the person, who fled from the spot was
‘Chhinda’ s/o Boori, but as per case set-out by the prosecution, the person,
who was apprehended after seven months of the incident and prosecuted in
the present case, was ‘Surinder Pal @Chhinda’ s/o Chain Ram.
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.10.30 18:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

12
32. If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors is
considered co-jointly, in my considered opinion, the uncorroborated and
unsupported testimony of PW-6, a police official, with regard to identity of
the appellant was not worth believeable. Rather in view of deposition of
DW-1 (the only independent witness of recovery) the testimony of PW-6
was rendered to be unworthy of credit.
33. As a sequel to abovementioned observations, in my considered
opinion, the learned trial Court committed an error of judgment, when it
believed the abovementioned evidence of the prosecution and observed that
the abovementioned evidence was sufficient to bring home guilt of the
accused. In my considered opinion, the abovementioned verdict of the
learned trial Court, being perverse, calls for interference in by this Court, in
the exercise of appellate jurisdiction. Thus, it is hereby held that the present
appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment & impugned
order deserve to be set aside.
34. In view of abovementioned observations, the present appeal is
hereby allowed . The impugned judgment and impugned order are hereby set
aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him.
35. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of, accordingly.




(SURYA PARTAP SINGH)
JUDGE
30.10.2026
Gaurav Thakur

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.10.30 18:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document