01Facts
On 31.03.2019, police apprehended the appellant in Khanna and recovered 400 grams of heroin from a polythene bag in his trouser pocket after a search conducted in the presence of a DSP.
p. 2The trial court convicted him under Section 21 of the NDPS Act and sentenced him to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,00,000, with two years’ rigorous imprisonment in default of payment.
p. 5In appeal, he challenged, among other matters, the investigating officers’ competence, the language of certain documents, delay in sending the sample to the laboratory, and the absence of an independent witness.
pp. 5–602Issues
i.1. Whether the investigation conducted in part by SI Jaswinder Singh and ASI Parmodh Kumar was incompetent so as to vitiate the prosecution.
pp. 5–6, 7ii.2. Whether the language of certain documents, the delay in receipt of the chemical examiner’s report, or the non-joining of an independent witness undermined the prosecution case.
pp. 5–703Law Applied
The conviction was under Section 21 of the NDPS Act.
p. 5The Court applied the principles that partial investigation by another officer does not, by itself, vitiate a trial absent demonstrated prejudice; that delay in receipt of a chemical examiner’s report is not fatal without evidence of tampering; and that non-joining of an independent witness does not, by itself, require rejection of police testimony, as official witnesses are not presumed untruthful.
pp. 7–8Provisions in the judgment · 7 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 15Section 21Section 22Section 29Section 61Section 85
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 313
04Reasoning
The Court found that the apprehension and recovery were primarily effected by ASI Kimti Lal, with the search conducted in the presence of DSP Deepak Rai; the appellant showed no prejudice arising from the later investigative steps taken by SI Jaswinder Singh.
p. 7The non-consent and consent memos were in English and bore the appellant’s signatures, so the fact that other documents were in Punjabi did not undermine the prosecution.
p. 7The Court also found no evidence of sample tampering and no basis to disbelieve the police witnesses merely because no independent witness joined the proceedings.
pp. 7–805Holding
The Court answered the issues against the appellant, found no merit in the appeal, and dismissed it, thereby leaving the conviction under Section 21 of the NDPS Act and the sentence imposed by the trial court undisturbed.
p. 5, 8Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.
p. 8Original Court PDF
George N BoleyvsState Of Punjab
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
