George N Boley vs State Of Punjab

CRA-S-1194-2021 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-1194-2021 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 02.11.2026
GEORGE N BOLLEY
. .. Appellant
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
...Respondent
Sr. No. Particulars Details
1. The date when the judgment was reserved 30.10.2026
2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 02.11.2026
The date when the judgment is uploaded on
3. 02.11.2026
the website
Whether only operative part of the judgment
4. is pronounced or whether the full judgment is Full
pronounced
The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full Not
5.
judgment, and reasons thereof applicable
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Ms. Swati Verma, Advocate
for the appellant
Mr. Yatin Bunger, Asstt. A.G., Punjab.

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.
The present appeal has been filed against the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 03.09.2021 passed by the Judge
Special Court, Ludhiana.
2. The FIR was registered on 31.03.2019, the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed by the Judge Special Court,
JITESH LAL
2026.11.02 16:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-1194-2021 (O&M) -2-
Ludhiana is dated 03.09.2021, the appeal was filed on 12.10.2021 and the
matter is being taken up for hearing now i. e. after a period of approximately
7½ years from the date of registration of the FIR.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 31.03.2019, a police party
headed by ASI Kimti Lal was present near Prem Bhandari Municipal Park,
Amloh Road, Khanna, for patrolling and checking when at about 12:15, they
saw a foreigner come there, who on seeing the police party tried to slip away.
He was apprehended and disclosed his name as George N Boley (appellant),
resident of D4-267, Monovia Seko, Liberia, at present Navada, Uttam Nagar,
Delhi. ASI Kimti Lal disclosed his identity and informed the accused that he
had a doubt that the accused was carrying some intoxicating material,
because of which his search was required to be conducted. The accused stated
that he wanted his search to be conducted before a Gazetted Officer and his
non-consent memo (Ex.P-1) was prepared in English. The same was signed
by the accused. Thereafter, Deepak Rai, DSP Khanna was requested to come
to the spot, who reached there along with other police officials. The DSP,
Khanna disclosed his identity to the accused and informed him that he (DSP)
wanted to search his (accused's) person. Pursuant to the consent memo
(Ex.P-2) prepared in English, his search took place and from a white colour
polythene bag in the right pocket of the trouser worn by the accused, 400
grams of heroin came to be recovered. The recovered contraband was sealed.
The accused disclosed that he had brought the heroin from New Delhi and
wanted to sell the same in Punjab. A ruqa was sent for the registration of an
FIR.
JITESH LAL
2026.11.02 16:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-1194-2021 (O&M) -3-
4. The second Investigating Officer i.e. SI Jaswinder Singh was
called to the spot, who conducted further investigation. During the personal
₹
search of the accused, a phone make Samsung and 200 were recovered from
him. On 01.04.2019, SI Jaswinder Singh took the case property from the
Malkhana and along with the accused produced the same before the JMIC
Khanna for preparation of an inventory. Two samples of 5 grams each of
heroin were drawn from the bulk and the remaining parcel of 390 grams was
re-sealed and deposited in the Malkhana . The sample of 5 grams heroin
sealed was deposited with the District Nazar, Ludhiana and a second sample
of 5 grams was deposited in the police Malkhana . Thereafter, the same was
despatched to FSL Ludhiana. On completion of investigation, the challan was
submitted in Court.
5. A prima facie offence under Section 15 of the NDPS Act was
found to be made out against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial.
6. In support of its case, the prosecution examined the following
witnesses:-
•
SI Mukesh Kumar was examined as PW1 who stated that he
sent the sample to FSL Ludhiana through ASI Satnam Singh.
•
ASI Kimti Lal was examined as PW2 who deposed as per the
case of the prosecution as noted above.
•
PW-3 SI Jaswinder Singh, who partly investigated the case
brought on record the site plan, arrest memo and personal
search memo of the accused. He also produced the case
property before the SHO ASI Parmodh Kumar and on
01.04.2019 produced the case property and the accused
JITESH LAL
2026.11.02 16:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-1194-2021 (O&M) -4-
before the Court of the Ilaqa Magistrate after which the Ilaqa
Magistrate passed the inventory order. He also deposed as to
the deposit of the sample parcels, the report of the FSL,
specimen seal slip Form No. 29 and various photographs. He
also identified the accused.
•
ASI Shamsher Singh was examined as PW4, who supported
the version of ASI Kimti Lal.
•
ASI Parmodh Kumar was examined as PW5, who stated that
on the basis of a ruqa sent by ASI Kimti Lal, the FIR (Ex. P-5)
was registered. He further stated that he had made an
endorsement on the ruqa and handed over the same to
Constable Antarjit Singh. SI Jaswinder Singh produced the
case property i.e. one bulk parcel of 400 grams of heroin,
before him.
•
Deepak Rai, DSP, Khanna was examined as PW-6 who
deposed as to the manner in which he came to the spot and
conducted the search of the accused.
•
ASI Satnam Singh was examined as PW-7 who deposed as to
the fact that he had deposited the parcel containing 400
grams of heroin in the police malkhana. He also stated that he
had handed over the same to SI Jaswinder Singh to be
produced before the Court. He also went to the office of the
SSP Ludhiana and thereafter to the FSL for depositing the
sample in the chemical laboratory but on an objection being
raised, he brought it back and after removing the objection
and once again deposited the same in the FSL.
7. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313
Cr.P.C., wherein he denied the case of the prosecution and pleaded false
implication, claiming that the contraband had been planted upon him.
8. ASI Malkit Singh was examined as DW1, who brought the
service record of HC Parmodh Kumar and stated that ASI Parmodh Kumar
JITESH LAL
2026.11.02 16:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-1194-2021 (O&M) -5-
was holding promotion from the post of Constable to ASI Local Rank and
was drawing a salary as a Head Constable, producing various documents
pertaining to ASI Parmodh Kumar in this regard.
9. Based on the evidence led, the accused/appellant came to be con-
victed and sentenced by the Court of Judge Special Court, Ludhiana vide
judgment and order of sentence dated 03.09.2021 as under:-
Offence under Sentence RI/SI Fine RI/SI in default
Section of payment of
fine
21 of NDPS Act RI for 10 years Rs.1,00,000/- RI for 02 years
10. It is the aforementioned judgment, which is under challenge, in
the present appeal.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the
investigation was initially conducted by ASI Kimti Lal and thereafter by SI
Jaswinder Singh, who was not competent to investigate the case, as at that
time he was not a regular ASI. Further, ASI Parmodh was also not competent
to conduct the investigation. This is fatal to the case of the prosecution. She
contends that other than the consent form and the non-consent form, all other
documents are in the Punjabi language and the appellant did not know the
same. Therefore, the appellant could not have been convicted of the offence
in question. There is a significant delay in obtaining the FSL report and the
tampering of the sample cannot be ruled out. No independent witness was
made a party to the search proceedings and therefore, the entire proceedings
stand vitiated, consequent to which the appellant ought to be acquitted of the
charges framed against him.
JITESH LAL
2026.11.02 16:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-1194-2021 (O&M) -6-
12. The learned State counsel, on the other hand, contends that the
investigation was mainly conducted in the present case by PW-2-Kimti Lal
and PW-6 Deepak Rai, DSP, Khanna. When PW-3-SI Jaswinder Singh came
into the picture, the recovery had already been effected by PW-2 Kimti Lal,
who was certainly competent to investigate the case as he was a regular ASI.
Once PW-2 ASI Kimti Lal and PW-6 Deepak Rai, DSP, Khanna were the
persons in whose presence the recovery was effected, merely because PW-3-
SI Jaswinder Singh had conducted some investigation would not impact the
prosecution case. The two most important documents i.e. the non-consent
memo (Ex.P-1) and the consent memo (Ex.P-2) were written in English. In
the non-consent memo (Ex.P-1), the appellant stated that he wished to be
searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer, whereas in the consent memo
(Ex.P-2), he agreed to the search being conducted before Deepak Rai, DSP
Khanna, who is admittedly a Gazetted Officer. If certain other documents are
in the vernacular, the entire case of the prosecution cannot be dislodged. As
regards delay in despatch of the sample to the laboratory, there is absolutely
nothing to suggest that the sample was tampered with and therefore the delay,
if any, would be of little relevance. As regards non-examination of
independent witnesses, it is his contention that the police party was not
inimical to the appellant in any manner whatsoever and therefore, mere non-
examination of an independent witness would not vitiate the trial, as there is
no presumption that official witnesses would not speak the truth. He,
therefore, contends that no fault can be found with the well-reasoned
JITESH LAL
2026.11.02 16:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-1194-2021 (O&M) -7-
judgment of conviction passed by the Sessions Judge, Sirsa and the present
appeal is liable to be dismissed.
13. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through
the record.
14. There is no doubt whatsoever that the primary investigation in
the present case was conducted by PW-2 ASI Kimti Lal and PW-6 Deepak
Rai, DSP, Khanna. The appellant was apprehended by a police party led by
PW-2 ASI Kimti Lal. The search was conducted and recovery effected in the
presence of PW-6 Deepak Rai, DSP. Merely because some part of the
investigation was conducted by PW-3 SI Jaswinder Singh would not vitiate
the Trial in its entirety, and some prejudice must have been caused to the
appellant, which has not so been shown. Though some documents are
admittedly in the Punjabi language, the non-consent memo (Ex.P-1) whereby
the appellant stated that he wanted to be searched in the presence of a
Gazetted Officer and the consent memo (Ex.P-2) wherein he has accepted
that search be conducted in the presence of Deepak Rai, DSP Khanna are
both in the English language. The appellant has affixed his signatures on the
said documents as well, in English. Therefore, the argument raised does not
carry much weight. Though there is some delay in the receipt of the report of
the chemical examiner, the same is not fatal to the case of the prosecution in
the absence of any evidence of the sample being tampered with. Further, mere
non-joining of an independent witness would not significantly impact the
case of the prosecution, as there is no inherent presumption that official
JITESH LAL
2026.11.02 16:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-1194-2021 (O&M) -8-
witnesses are to be disbelieved, particularly in a scenario wherein the
appellant has not been able to establish any enmity with the police.
15. It may also be added here that the purpose for which the
appellant was residing in India is unclear. There is absolutely no evidence that
he was running a business or had any other source of income. To the contrary,
he was involved in one other case under the NDPS Act arising out of FIR
No.78 dated 22.07.2019 U/s 22-29-61-85 of NDPS Act, P.S. Division No.4,
Ludhiana, though in the said case he has been acquitted.
16. In view of the aforementioned discussion, I find no merit in the
present appeal. Therefore, the same stands dismissed.
17. The pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of
accordingly.
(JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
JUDGE

02.11.2026
JITESH Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
JITESH LAL
2026.11.02 16:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document