CRA-S-1906-SB IN THE H SIKANDER SHA STATE UT CHA 1 The dat 2 The dat 3 The dat website 4 Whethe pronoun pronoun 5 The del judgme CORAM: HON Present: Mr. Ms. K Mr. J Mr. K Mr. A **** MANISHA BATR 1. The judgment of convi as passed by the 06.04.2017 titled a 15.07.2016 registe SB-2018 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH SHARMA Versus CHANDIGARH he date when the judgment is reserved he date when the judgment is pronoun he date when the judgment is uploaded ebsite hether only operative part of the judg ronounced or whether the full judgmen ronounced he delay, if any, of the pronouncement dgment and reasons thereof. HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS HPS Sandhu, Advocate with Ms. Karuna Kalra, Advocate for the a Mr. J.S. Toor, Senior Advocate with Mr. Karandeep, Advocate and Mr. Adhiraj Toor, Advocate for UT, C **** BATRA, J. The instant appeal has been preferre conviction and order on quantum of s y the Learned Special Court, Chandi titled as “State Vs. Sikander Sharma” registered under Section 21 of the Na JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH CRA-S-1906-SB-2018 (O&M) ... Petitioner ...Respondent served 08.05.2026 onounced 22.05.2026 loaded on the 22.05.2026 e judgment is dgment is Full cement of full Not applicable ANISHA BATRA r the appellant with r UT, Chandigarh referred by the appellant against the m of sentence both dated 24.04.2018 handigarh in NDPS Case No.33 of rma” arising out of FIR No.82 dated Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic oner dent t the 2018 3 of ated ropic AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.22 15:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRA-S-1906-SB Substances Act (fo whereby the appe offence and was s months and to pa further sentenced t 2. The p while performing coming from the officials, he at o suspicion having polythene by takin by one of the polic to be kept therein Sharma @ Bantu i permit for keepin contraband on we was formally arres before the Court. 3. Copie Section 207 of the for commission o appellant had bee charge and claime SB-2018 (O&M) 2 (for short “NDPS Act”) at Police S appellant had been held guilty for c was sentenced to undergo rigorous im to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- In defaul nced to undergo rigorous imprisonme The prosecution story as unfolded i rming vehicle checking duty, the Poli the side of Sector 20 (Mosque) on at once turned back and started m aving been aroused, he was appreh aking it out from the pocket of his e police officials. On checking, some herein. On asking, the said youth di ntu i.e. the present appellant. He co keeping the contraband which was h on weighing machine, it was found to y arrested. After completion of invest ourt. Copies of challan were supplied to th of the Code of Criminal Procedure. sion of offence punishable under Sec d been charge-sheeted accordingly. claimed trial. olice Station Sector 19, Chandigarh, for commission of aforementioned ous imprisonment for a period of 03 default of payment of fine, he was sonment for a period of 15 days. lded in brief is that on 15.07.2016, e Police party found a youth while ue) on foot. On noticing the police rted moving with fast paces. On pprehended. He tried to throw a of his trouser, but his hand was held , some narcotic substance was found disclosed his name as Sikander could not produce any licence or was heroin. On weighing the said und to be 10 grams. The appellant investigation, challan was presented d to the appellant as envisaged under dure. On finding a prima facie case er Section 21 of the NDPS Act, the ngly. He pleaded not guilty to the garh, oned of 03 was 016, hile olice On w a held ound nder ce or said llant nted nder case t, the o the AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.22 15:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRA-S-1906-SB 4. To su witnesses besides evidence of prosec 5. Statem Cr.P.C. wherein th pleased innocence 6. On ap contentions raised guilty and convict the present appeal 7. It is learned counsel fo order on quantum passing the impug the appellant had been planted upo Investigating Age him from a public Sections 50 of th Agency. Moreso, of the recovered c “CFSL”). The do SB-2018 (O&M) 3 To substantiate its case, the prosecu esides placing reliance upon certain prosecution was closed. Statement of the appellant was rec rein the appellant denied the allegatio cence. No defence evidence had been appraising the evidence produced raised by both the sides, the Learned onvicted him in the manner as indica appeal has been filed. It is submitted in grounds of appea nsel for the appellant that the impugne antum of sentence are not sustainabl impugned judgment, the Learned Tri t had been falsely implicated in this d upon him. No independent witn g Agency though the alleged recovery public place. It is further argued tha of the NDPS Act had not been c oreso, there was unexplained delay of ered contraband to Central Forensic he documents like seizure memo wer rosecution examined as many as 09 ertain documents and thereafter the as recorded under Section 313 of legations as levelled against him and d been adduced. duced on record and considering the arned Trial Court held the appellant indicated above. Feeling aggrieved, appeal and it has been argued by pugned judgment of conviction and ainable in the eyes of law as while ed Trial Court ignored the fact that n this case and a false recovery had t witness had been joined by the covery was evidently effected from ed that the mandatory provisions of een complied by the Investigating lay of 07 days in sending the sample rensic Science Laboratory (for short o were not proved to be prepared at s 09 r the 3 of and g the llant eved, d by and hile that had the from ns of ating mple short ed at AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.22 15:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRA-S-1906-SB the spot since the was not possible a of conviction and appeal deserves to charge as framed for the appellant Anr. V. State of Hon’ble Supreme of 2017 decided o CRA-S-1888-SB State of Punjab i State of Punjab in Kumar V. State o of Punjab 2013 (1 passed by Hon’ble 8. Per c illegality or infirm quantum of senten record to prove t passed by the Lea devoid of any mer SB-2018 (O&M) 4 ce they bear the FIR number and all sible at the spot. It is, therefore, argue n and order on quantum of sentence rves to be allowed and the appellant d amed against him. To substantiate h ellant has placed reliance upon the a of Himachal Pradesh 2022(2) RC reme Court, Harjeet Singh V. State ded on 11.05.2023, Jaspal Singh @ SB-2016 decided on 09.03.2017, D jab in CRA-906-DB-2006 decided o ab in CRA No.S-1542-SB-2006 dec ate of Punjab Law finder ID 21416 13 (1) RCR (Criminal) 257 and NC n’ble Supreme Court. Per contra, learned State counsel infirmity in the impugned judgmen sentence. There was positive cogen rove the guilt of the petitioner. A he Learned Trial Court. It is, theref y merit and that the same is liable to b nd all particulars of the case which , argued that the impugned judgment ntence is liable to be set aside, the llant deserves to be acquitted of the tiate his arguments, learned counsel the authorities cited as Sanjeev & ) RCR (Criminal) 341 passed by tate of UT in CRA-S No.4011-SB gh @ Pala V. State of Punjab in 17, Didar Singh @ Dara V. The ed on 13.05.2010, Ram Singh V. decided on 04.11.2014, Surinder 141693, Jaswinder Singh V. State NCB V. Kashif 2024 INSC 1045 unsel has argued that there is no dgment of conviction and order on cogent and convincing evidence on . A well-reasoned order has been therefore, argued that the appeal is le to be dismissed. hich ment , the f the unsel & by SB in he V. der ate 45 s no r on e on been al is AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.22 15:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRA-S-1906-SB 9. This C length and has also going through the 10. The c appellant had turn pocket of his trous SI Sher-PW7. In effected from the pocket. However Police officials to Section 50 of the Singh’s case (sup there was no com Act and on that ve mandatory provisi been complied wi the opinion that th 11. Furth recovery of contra P-13 is also show handed over for d days. SB-2018 (O&M) 5 This Court has heard learned counsel also gone through the material plac gh the impugned judgment as passed b The case of the prosecution is that o d turned his back and had then take is trouser and tried to throw the same 7. In view of the allegations, it is ap m the hand of the accused, who broug wever, no offer is shown to have bee ials to get his personal search conduc of the NDPS Act. In similar circum (supra) and Jaspal Singh @ Pala’s o compliance of mandatory provision that very ground the accused was held provisions of Section 50 of the NDP ied with in this case, therefore, on thi that the conviction of the petitioner do Further, it is revealed from the mate contraband had been effected on 15.07 shown to have been prepared on tha r for deposit at CFSL only on 20.07 ounsel for the parties at considerable al placed on record, besides minutely ssed by the trial Court. that on seeing the police party, the take out a polythene bag from the same away but was apprehended by t is apparent that recovery had been brought out polythene bag from his ve been given to the accused by the onducted which is imperative under ircumstances, this Court in Harjeet la’s case (supra) had observed that visions of Section 50 of the NDPS held entitled to acquittal. Since the NDPS Act are not proved to have on this ground, this Court is also of ner does not sustain. e material placed on record that the 15.07.2016. The seizure memo Ex. on that date. However, the sample 20.07.2016 i.e. after a delay of 04 rable utely , the he d by been his y the nder jeet that DPS e the have so of t the o Ex. mple f 04 AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.22 15:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRA-S-1906-SB 12. Apart the seizure memo prepared at the sp Rajesh for registr were prepared, th seizure memo Ex. bear the FIR numb these documents station. This fact the prosecution an In this regard, this Dara’s case (supr the documents pre FIR was registered in the document af integrity of the pr Singh’s case (sup FIR No. came to Ex.P14 and CFSL beyond doubt tha inference is to b prepared in the m consequential pro SB-2018 (O&M) 6 Apart from this, another lacuna in the memo Ex.P13, ruqa Ex.P14 and CFSL the spot and had been sent to the Pol registration of FIR. Meaning thereb ed, the FIR had not been registered. o Ex.P13, ruqa Ex.P14 and CFSL Fo number and the particulars of the cas ents were prepared subsequently o is fact itself creates a doubt about the tion and amounts to serious infirmity rd, this Court relies upon the observa supra), wherein it was observed that nts prepared at the outset gives rise to istered prior to the alleged recovery o ent after its registration and both the the prosecution version. Similar obs (supra). Since in this case it has no me to be recorded in the documents CFSL Form Ex.P17 though it was bt that the investigation had been to be drawn that the aforemention the manner alleged and as projecte al proceedings conducted by the offi in the case of the prosecution is that CFSL Form Ex.P17 were allegedly he Police Station through Constable thereby that when these documents stered. However, on perusal of the SL Form Ex.P17 it is clear that they he case thereby indicating that either ntly or were altered at the police ut the authenticity of the version of rmity in the case of the prosecution. bservations made in Didar Singh @ ed that mentioning of FIR number on rise to the inferences that either the ry or number of FIR was inserted th the circumstances reflect upon the lar observations were made in Ram has not been explained as to how the uments seizure memo Ex.P13, ruqa t was for the prosecution to prove been conducted fairly, as such an entioned documents had not been ojected by the prosecution and the he officers have become suspicious that edly table ents f the they ither olice n of tion. @ on r the erted n the am the ruqa rove h an been the cious AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.22 15:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRA-S-1906-SB thereby creating a the benefit of the s 13. Keep prosecution has fa the appeal is allow sentence dated 24 are hereby set asi him. The accused this judgment alon A copy of judgme 14. All t automatically stan 22.05.2026 Amit Sharma SB-2018 (O&M) 7 ting a shadow of reasonable doubt ov f the same goes to the accused/appella Keeping in view the aforesaid dis has failed to prove its case beyond re is allowed. The judgment of convict ted 24.04.2018 as passed by the Learn set aside. The appellant is acquitted ccused stands acquitted. The appeal nt alongwith the trial court record be se dgment, if applied for, be also made a All the pending criminal miscella ly stand disposed of. (MAN Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes Whether reportable:- Yes/No ubt over the prosecution version and ppellant. id discussion, it is held that the ond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, onviction and order on quantum of Learned Special Court, Chandigarh uitted of the charges framed against peal stands allowed. Let a copy of d be sent forthwith to the trial Court. ade available to the appellant. iscellaneous application(s), if any (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No and t the ngly, m of igarh ainst y of ourt. any AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.22 15:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.