Sulakhan Singh & Anr vs St Of Pb

CRA-S-1121 -SB-2005 (O&M ) a n d co nn ected case 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-1121-SB-2005 (O&M)
Reserved on : 02.11.2026
Pronounced on: 05.11.2026
SULAKHAN SINGH AND ANR
..... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
..... RESPONDENT
CRA-S-922-SB-2005 (O&M)
RAJ @ RAJU
..... APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
..... RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH
Present : Mr. Hitesh Verma, Advocate/Amicus Curiae
for the appellants in CRA-S-1121-SB-2005.
Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate
for the appellant in CRA-S-922-SB-2005.
Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab.
*
, .
SURYA PARTAP SINGH J
These are two appeals, filed by the appellants, against the verdict
of conviction. Since both the appeals have been filed against the same
judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both of them are being
disposed of by this common judgment.
2. By virtue of judgment of conviction dated 08.02.2005,
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.11.05 19:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-1121 -SB-2005 (O&M ) a n d co nn ected case 2
hereinafter being referred to as ‘impugned judgment’ only, passed by the
Court of learned Special Court, (designated under Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act) , Amritsar hereinafter being referred to as ‘trial
Court’ only, the appellants have been convicted for the commission of
offence punishable under Section 15 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 , hereinafter being referred to as ‘NDPS Act’. As a
consequence thereof, by virtue of order of even date, i.e. dated 08.02.2005,
on the point of quantum of sentence, hereinafter being referred to as
‘impugned order’, following sentences were awarded to the appellants:-
Offence under
Section Sentence
Rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years each
and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each. In default
thereof to undergo further imprisonment (rigorous) for
a period of one year each.
15 of NDPS Act
3. In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that on
25.01.2000, one FIR, i.e. FIR No.11 of 2000 under-Section 15 of NDPS Act,
was lodged in Police Station Goindwal Sahib, at the instance of SI/SHO
Satnam Singh. It was reported by the above-named police officer that on that
day, when he was leading a team of police officials, deputed for patrolling
duty, at Kapurthala Chowk, Goindwal Sahib a reliable source gave him a tip-
off that a truck bearing registration No. HR-38-6903 , approaching from
Kapurthala side , and driven by ‘Sulakhan Singh @ Midi’, was carrying
poppy husk. As per report of abovenamed police officer in addition to above,
it was also informed that ‘Raju’ and ‘Charanjit Singh @ Billa’ were sitting on
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.11.05 19:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-1121 -SB-2005 (O&M ) a n d co nn ected case 3
the bags of poppy husk loaded in the truck . According to the above-named
police officer, on receipt of abovementioned information, he requested
‘Kashmir Singh Sarpanch’ to join the proceedings, as a witness, and
thereafter, laid a picket at Kapurthala Chowk.
4. According to the above-named police officer, at about 12:00
midnight the aforesaid truck was spotted, when it was approaching the
barricade from Kapurthala side. It was further reported by the above-named
police officer that the above-said truck was stopped, but one occupant of the
truck namely ‘ Charanjit Singh @ Billa’ jumped out the truck and fled from
the spot, whereas the driver and the other occupant of the truck were
apprehended, who disclosed their identities as ‘Sulakhan Singh @ Midi’ and
‘Raju’, respectively. As per above-named police officer, when search of the
truck was conducted 15 bags, each containing 40 kg poppy husk, totalling
600 kg, were recovered.
5. It was further reported by the above-named police officer that
pursuant to the recovery of abovementioned contraband, requisite formalities,
such as extracting samples, registration of FIR, and formal arrest of the
accused were completed and further investigation taken up. According to
prosecution, on completion of usual formalities of investigation, all the
above-named three accused were sent to the Court to face trial.
6. To discharge its burden, of proving charges against the
appellants, 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 - Consent memo of ‘Sulakhan Singh ’
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.11.05 19:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-1121 -SB-2005 (O&M ) a n d co nn ected case 4
Ex.PB - Consent memo of Raju
Ex.PC - Seizure memo of the Contraband
Ex.PD - Non-Consent memo of ‘Sulakhan
Singh’
Ex.PE - Non-Consent memo of Raju
Ex.PF - The information-memo sent to the
police station (ruqqa)
Ex.PF/1 - Copy of First Information Report
Ex.PG - Rough site plan of the place of recovery
of contraband
Ex.PH - Panchnama
Ex.PI - Report of Chemical Examiner
7. To provide support and corroboration to the above-mentioned
documentary evidence, as many as three witnesses were examined by the
prosecution. They were:-
PW-1 Ct. Ashok Kumar
-
PW-2 SP Darhanjit Singh
-
PW-3 SI Satnam Singh
-
8. Once the prosecution evidence was complete, the learned trial
Court completed all the formalities, enshrined under Section 313 CrPC.
Thereafter, opportunity to lead defence evidence was afforded to the
appellants. However, in their defence evidence, no evidence, whatsoever, was
adduced by the appellants.
9. 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 of the appellants was pronounced and, accordingly, the appellants
were sentenced to undergo imprisonment, detailed, hereinbefore.
10. Heard.
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.11.05 19:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-1121 -SB-2005 (O&M ) a n d co nn ected case 5
11. It has been contended on behalf of appellants 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 (namely Raj @Raju), and the learned Amicus Curiae (for the
appellant Sulakhan Singh), merely on the basis of assumptions and
presumptions, the unreliable and self-contradictory evidence adduced by the
prosecution was believed by the learned trial Court, and that the learned trial
Court failed to apply its judicial mind. As per learned counsel for the
appellants, on the basis of conjectures and surmises the finding of conviction
of appellants for the commission of offence under Section-15 of NDPS Act
was recorded. It has been forcefully contended by learned counsel for the
appellants that the impugned judgment, being perverse, deserves to be set
aside.
12. The learned counsel for the appellants have further contended
that the learned trial Court ignored this cardinal principle of criminal
jurisprudence that prosecution had to prove its case beyond the shadow of all
reasonable doubts. According to learned Counsel for the appellants, the
evidence adduced by the prosecution was grossly inadequate to draw an
inference that all the essential ingredients, meant for proving the offence, for
which the appellants were convicted, had been proved beyond the shadow of
reasonable doubts. In view of above, the learned Counsel for the appellants
have contended that the case against the appellants was not proved by the
prosecution, but erroneously the learned trial Court returned the finding of
conviction.
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.11.05 19:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-1121 -SB-2005 (O&M ) a n d co nn ected case 6
13. The learned counsel for the appellants have further contended
that instant case was a case, wherein right from the very beginning not only a
false story was concocted by the Investigating Agency, but also the procedure
adopted by the Investigating Officer was defective, which was contrary to the
rules and settled norms of criminal jurisprudence. According to learned
counsel for the appellants, since a very harsh punishment has been prescribed
for the commission of offence punishable under Section-15 of the NDPS Act,
it was bounden duty of the investigating officer to strictly adhere to the rules
and procedures during the course of investigation, so that valuable rights of
the appellants could be protected. As per learned counsel for the appellants,
the abovementioned safeguards were completely ignored by the Investigating
Officer in this case, and therefore, this conclusion of learned trial Court was
absolutely incorrect that charges against the appellants were proved beyond
the shadow of reasonable doubts.
14. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the appellants
that another glaring defect in the instant case was that as per story set-out by
the prosecution, itself, an independent witness, namely ‘Kashmir Singh,
Sarpanch’, was present on the spot at the time of alleged recovery of
contraband, but during the course of trial the above-named witness, who was
the most material witness, was not examined by the prosecution. As per
learned counsel for the appellants, the abovesaid sole lapse on the part of
prosecuting agency was fatal and grave enough to disbelieve the prosecution
story. According to learned counsel for the appellants, the instant case was
not a case, wherein any independent witness was not present at the time of
recovery. Rather it was a case, wherein one independent witness was joined
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.11.05 19:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-1121 -SB-2005 (O&M ) a n d co nn ected case 7
at the time of investigation, but he was not examined during trial. With regard
to above, the learned counsel for the appellants have contended that failure of
the prosecution to examine ‘Kashmir Singh, Sarpanch’, the sole independent
witness in this case, was a lapse which was more serious, in comparison to
the cases wherein no independent witness was joined at the time of recovery
of contraband.
15. With regard to above, the learned Counsel for the appellants
have referred to the observations, recorded by this Court in the case of
‘Ramesh Kumar Mishra V/s State of Punjab’ CRA-S-2118-SB-2014, wherein
it was observed that failure of prosecution to examine independent witnesses,
which led to a situation that testimonies of official witnesses remained
uncorroborated, renders the prosecution case to be doubtful.
16. The learned Counsel for the appellants have further contended
that another deficiency in the instant case, which was serious enough to
demolish the prosecution case, was that as per story set-out by the
Investigating Officer, the recovery was pursuant to a secret information given
to the Investigating Officer in advance. As per learned counsel for the
appellants, in such circumstances, it was mandatory for the Investigating
Officer to comply with the provisions enshrined under Section 42(2) of
NDPS Act, which prescribes that the information should have been reduced
into writing and such written information should have been communicated to
an officer, senior to the Investigating Officer. According to learned counsel
for the appellants, the abovementioned procedure was not adopted by the
Investigating Officer in the instant case, and therefore, for the violation of
Section 42 of NDPS Act, the investigation was rendered defective. It has
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.11.05 19:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-1121 -SB-2005 (O&M ) a n d co nn ected case 8
been further contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the
abovementioned lapse of the Investigating Officer warranted a verdict of
acquittal of the appellants.
17. In support of his abovementioned arguments, the learned
Counsel for the appellants has relied upon the principles of law propounded
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of ‘Karnail Singh v/s
State of Haryana 2009(5) RCR (Criminal) 515’, ‘Kishan Chand v/s State of
Haryana 2013(2) SCC 502’, ‘Sukhdev Singh v/s State of Haryana 2013(2)
RCR (Criminal) 232’, and ‘Darshan Singh v/s State of Haryana 2016(1) RCR
(Criminal) 333’. In addition to above reliance has also been placed upon the
principles laid down by this Court in the cases of ‘Avtar Singh V/s State of
Punjab CRA-S-126-SB-2004’, ‘Isham Singh V/s State of Haryana CRA-S-
1954-SB-2004’ and Boota Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2021(19) SCC 606.
18. In view of abovementioned arguments, the learned Counsel for
the appellants have contended that an error of judgment was committed by
the learned trial Court, while convicting the appellants, and therefore, there is
need for exercising the appellate jurisdiction vested in this Court. Thus,
interference in the impugned judgment has been sought and it has been urged
that both the appeals be accepted.
19. The learned counsel for the respondent/State has controverted
the abovementioned arguments. While defending the impugned judgment, it
has been contended by learned counsel for the respondent/State that instant
case was a well-proved case, wherein each and every component, right from
the very moment of receipt of information, till the conclusion of
investigation, had been proved by the prosecution with the help of reliable
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.11.05 19:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-1121 -SB-2005 (O&M ) a n d co nn ected case 9
evidence, and that the evidence adduced by the prosecution being coherent
and consistent with the story set out in the FIR, deserved to be believed.
According to learned counsel for the respondent/State, the abovementioned
evidence was rightly believed by the learned trial Court.
20. While referring to the arguments, addressed by the learned
counsel for the appellants, the learned counsel for the respondent/State has
contended that in the present case, the facts and circumstances, themselves,
would go to show that the Investigating Officer on receipt of information had
got very limited time to record the information, into writing, and
communicate the same to his senior officer. According to learned counsel for
the respondent/State, if the investigating officer would have indulged in
completing the abovementioned formalities, the vehicle of the appellants
could not have been intercepted.
21. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the
respondent/State that substantial compliance of Section-42 of NDPS Act was
made by the Investigating Officer, as he had shared the information with his
senior officer, i.e. ‘SP Darshanjit Singh’, who arrived on the spot. According
to learned counsel for the respondent/State, once the above-named senior
officer himself reached the spot before recovery of contraband, this plea of
learned counsel for the appellants has got no force that for want of
compliance of Section 42(2) of NDPS Act, any prejudice was caused to the
rights of the appellants. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for
the respondent/State has relied upon the principles of law propounded by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of ‘Bahadur Singh v/s State of
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.11.05 19:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-1121 -SB-2005 (O&M ) a n d co nn ected case 10
Haryana 2010(4) SCC 445’ and ‘State of Punjab V/s Balbir Singh AIR 1994
SC 1872’.
22. Qua this arguments of learned Counsel for the appellants that the
independent witness, namely ‘Kashmir Singh, Sarpanch’, was not examined,
it has been contended by learned counsel for the respondent/State that when
on the basis of testimonies of official witnesses, all the essential ingredients
meant for proving the charge for the offence under Section-15 of NDPS Act
had been duly proved by the prosecution, the non-examination of above-
named witness could not have an adverse impact on the prosecution case. As
per learned counsel for the respondent/State, there is no mandate of law that
without independent witness any fact cannot be proved.
23. While concluding his arguments, it has been contended by
learned counsel for the respondent/State that all the essential ingredients
meant for proving a charge under Section-15 of NDPS Act were duly proved
by the prosecution with the help of reliable evidence, and that the learned trial
Court rightly believed the same. As per learned counsel for the
respondent/State, there is no scope for indulgence or interference in the
findings of conviction, recorded by the learned trial Court. According to
learned counsel for the respondent/State, the present appeals are devoid of
merits and deserve dismissal.
24. The record has been perused carefully.
25. To prove its allegations the prosecution, in the present case, had
examined three witnesses i.e. PW-1 ‘Constable Ashok Kumar’, PW-2 ‘SP
Darshanjit Singh’ and PW-3 ‘SI Satnam Singh’ only.
26. The PW-1, by virtue of his statement testified that samples of
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.11.05 19:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-1121 -SB-2005 (O&M ) a n d co nn ected case 11
the contraband were handed over to him by the ‘MHC-Satpal Singh’ of
police station on 15.02.2000, and that he took the parcel, containing the
sample, firstly to the office of SSP Tarn Taran, obtained a docket from there
and then the same parcel was delivered to the office of Chemical Examiner,
Amritsar on the same day.
27. The next witness, i.e. PW-2, when appeared in the witness-box,
supported the prosecution case by deposing the fact that on the day when
recovery of contraband had taken place, i.e. on 25.01.2000, he was posted as
DSP Goindwal Sahib. As per PW-2 on that day at about 12:30 a.m., he
received a wireless message of SHO Satnam Singh regarding the
apprehension of two persons, namely ‘Sulakhan Singh’ and ‘Raju’ (the
appellants), in a truck bearing registration No. HR-38-6903. As per PW-2 in
response to above information he rushed to the spot and on arrival there, he
apprised both the abovenamed persons of their legal right to be searched
before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. According to PW-2 they consented
to be searched in his presence and thereafter, the truck was searched under
his supervision, which led to recovery of 15 jute bags containing poppy husk,
each weighing 39.750 kg. The PW-2 further testified that samples of 250
grams each were drawn from the bags, and the samples as well as the
remaining contraband were sealed and seized by the Investigating Officer.
The PW-2 had offered himself for cross-examination. The abovesaid right,
i.e. right of cross-examination of PW-2, was duly exercised by learned
counsel for the appellants.
28. Another witness, examined by the prosecution, was SI Satnam
Singh. He was examined as PW-3. The PW-3 had testified that on
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.11.05 19:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-1121 -SB-2005 (O&M ) a n d co nn ected case 12
25.01.2000, he had received a tip-off from a reliable source, and that he
shared the abovementioned information with his superior officer, i.e. ‘DSP
Darshanjit Singh. As per PW-3, after that the truck of the appellants bearing
registration No. HR-38-6903 arrived and from the truck, contraband was
recovered. The story narrated by the PW-3 was identical to the contents of
FIR, vis-à-vis the deposition of PW-2. Like PW-2, the PW-3, too, deposed
that one independent witness, namely ‘Kashmir Singh, Sarpanch’, was joined
as independent witness on the spot, and that the recovery of contraband had
taken place in the presence of Kashmir Singh.
29. The PW-3, too, was cross-examined at length by learned counsel
for the appellants. However in his cross-examination, the PW-3 had deposed
that the information received by him was not reduced into writing, nor he sent
the same to the senior police officer in writing.
30. With regard to present case it is pertinent to mention here that
the story set-out by the prosecution itself showed that at the time of recovery
of contraband from the possession of appellant, an independent witness, i.e.
Sarpanch – ‘Kashmir Singh’ was present on the spot, but the above-named
witness was not examined by the prosecution during the course of trial.
Although while giving him up, a statement was got recorded by the learned
Public Prosecutor, that the above-named witness was won-over by the
appellant, but the basis on which above mentioned conclusion was drawn,
was not revealed. Thus, in my considered opinion, the prosecution, in the
present case, committed a serious lapse when it failed to examine the only
independent witness present on the spot at the time of recovery of contraband
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.11.05 19:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-1121 -SB-2005 (O&M ) a n d co nn ected case 13
from the appellant. In fact the above-mentioned lapse resulted into fatal blow
to the prosecution case.
31. Another relevant aspect to be taken into consideration in the
present case was that the Investigating Officer failed to comply with the
mandatory provisions enshrined under Section 52A of ‘NDPS Act’. Either in
the report under Section 173 of the ‘Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973’
(Cr.P.C.) or in the deposition of PW-3, (the Investigating Officer of the case),
there was no claim that the case property was produced before the Judicial
Magistrate for the purpose of preparing inventory and extracting samples.
32. With regard to compliance of Section 52A of ‘NDPS Act, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India , in the case of ‘Union of India v. Mohan Lal
and Another (2016) 3 SCC 379’ ruled that “it is manifest from Section
52A(2)(c) that upon seizure of the contraband the same has to be forwarded
either to the officer in-charge of the nearest police station or to the officer
empowered under Section 53, who shall prepare an inventory as stipulated in
the said provision and make an application to the Magistrate for the purposes
of:-
(a) certifying the correctness of the inventory
(b) certifying photographs of such drugs or substances taken
before the Magistrate as true, and
(c) to draw representative samples in the presence of the
Magistrate and certifying the correctness of the list of
samples so drawn.
33. As per the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India Sub-section (3) of
Section 52-A requires that the Magistrate shall as soon as possible may allow
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.11.05 19:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-1121 -SB-2005 (O&M ) a n d co nn ected case 14
the application. This implies that no sooner the seizure is effected and the
contraband is forwarded to the officer in charge of the Police Station or the
officer empowered, the officer concerned is duty bound to approach the
Magistrate for the purposes mentioned above, including grant of permission
to draw representative samples in his presence, which samples will then be
enlisted and the correctness of the list of samples so drawn certified by the
Magistrate. In other words, the process of drawing of samples has to be in the
presence and under the supervision of the Magistrate and the entire exercise
has to be certified by him to be correct.”
34. With regard to scope of Section 52A of ‘NDPS Act’, in the case
of ‘Bharat Ambale v. The State of Chhattisgarh (2025) 8 SCC 452’, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has propounded that samples must be drawn
in the presence of Magistrate and certified by him. According to the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India mere drawing of sample in the presence of Gazetted
Officer is insufficient.
35. In a recent judgment in the case case of ‘Abdul Rajik v. State of
M.P. 2026 Law Finder (SC) 5679’, it has been observed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India that total non-compliance with Section 52A of
‘NDPS Act’ and breach of chain of custody rendered the prosecution case
unsustainable. According to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India the absence
of credible link evidence and scientific material to confirm the identity of the
contraband as “charas” would lead to acquittal of accused.
36. The principles laid down in all the above-mentioned three cases
are applicable to the fact and circumstances of the instant case. In the present
case, it is also relevant to mention here that as per standing order No.1/89 by
Narcotic Control Bureau the samples should have been delivered to the
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.11.05 19:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-1121 -SB-2005 (O&M ) a n d co nn ected case 15
Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) within a period of 72 hours, but in the
present case the above-mentioned timeline was not adhered to, and the
samples were sent to the FSL after 20 days of recovery. The abovesaid delay
in delivery of sample to the FSL, created an element of doubt against the
credibility of prosecution story. The abovementioned doubt was significant if
the same would have been considered cojointly with other deficiencies in
prosecution evidence.
37. It is also relevant to mention that the prosecution had come
forward with a plea that recovery of contraband had taken place pursuant to a
tip-off given by a reliable source. But as per report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
vis-a-vis deposition of PW-3, the above-mentioned information was not
reduced into writing nor the same was sent to the senior officer in compliance
of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. With regard to above, the principles of law
propounded by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Karnail Singh
vs. State of Haryana 2009(5) RCR 515’ are relevant wherein a Bench of
Hon’ble five Judges of Supreme Court of India ruled that total non-
compliance of Section 42(1) and 42(2) are impermissible, i.e. where the
officer does not record the information at all and does not inform the superior
official.
38. It is also relevant to mention here that link evidence in the
present case is missing. A perusal of record shows that as per story set-out by
the prosecution, once the recovery of contraband had taken place the samples
extracted from the contraband, and the residue contraband, were duly sealed
and kept in the store room of police station. From the date of deposit of
above-mentioned samples in the store room, till the delivery of the same to
Chemical Laboratory, the above-mentioned samples must have been in the
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.11.05 19:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-1121 -SB-2005 (O&M ) a n d co nn ected case 16
custody of Incharge of Store Room. But the above-mentioned official was not
examined by the prosecution. The failure of prosecution to examine such
witness led to following two defects in the prosecution case:-
Firstly , the prosecution could not prove the date on which
samples were deposited in the store room of police station; and
Secondly , it failed to prove that from the date of deposit of
samples till handing over of the same to PW-1 the samples were
not tampered with.
39. The above-mentioned link was very crucial and material piece of
evidence in the present case, but the same was missing. The failure of
prosecution to produce such evidence amounted to a serious lapse in view of
the law propounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
‘Mohd. Khalid Vs. The State of Telengana’ Criminal Appeal No.1610 of
2023.
40. If the impact of all the above-mentioned factors would have
been considered co-jointly their cumulative effect would lead to a definite
conclusion that prosecution case with regard to recovery of contraband from
the possession of appellants was surrounded by such a grave suspicious
circumstances that this conclusion could not have been drawn, on the basis of
above-mentioned evidence, that the prosecution had been successful in
discharging its duty of proving the charge against the appellants. Thus, in my
considered opinion the evidence adduced by the prosecution was not reliable
enough to bring home guilt of the appellants, and the learned trial Court fell
into error of judgment when by ignoring the above-mentioned factors, it
recorded the findings of conviction qua the appellants.
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.11.05 19:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-1121 -SB-2005 (O&M ) a n d co nn ected case 17
41. In view of above-mentioned observations, it is hereby held that
the impugned judgment of conviction is not sustainable in the eyes of law and
deserves to be set aside.
42. As a sequel to abovementioned discussion, in my considered
opinion there is merit in both the present appeals. Hence, both the appeal are
hereby accepted. The impugned judgment of conviction is hereby set aside
and the appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them.
43. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed
of, accordingly.
44. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected
case.
(SURYA PARTAP SINGH)
JUDGE
05.11.2026
vipin
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.11.05 19:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document