CRA-S-1033-SB-2005 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 118 CRA-S-1033-SB-2005 (O&M) Baldev Singh . . . Petitioner(s) Versus State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s) 1. Date when the judgment was reserved 03.07.2026 2. Date when the judgment is pronounced 30.07.2026 3. Date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 30.07.2026 4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced Full 5. The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and reasons thereof. Not applicable. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. Narinder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Vinay Malhotra, DAG, Punjab. **** SANJAY VASHISTH , J. 1. Vide judgment dated 18.05.2005, appellant – Baldev Singh, aged 30 years (as per judgment), was convicted and sentenced by the Court of Special Judge, Ferozepur (trial Court), as under:- Under Section Sentence (R.I.) Fine (in Rs.) In Default 15(c) of NDPS Act, 1985 10 years Rs.1,00,000/- R.I. for 02 years 2. As per the case of prosecution, on 16.07.1998 at about 5:00 LAVISHA 2026.07.30 13:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRA-S-1033-SB-2005 (O&M) 2 P.M., Inspector/SHO Harbans Singh, ASI Jagdish Lal, ASI Surjit Singh and other police officials were present at BSF Sector Mamdot, for the purpose of patrolling in an official jeep, bearing registration No.PB-05-9470, driven by Constable Surinder Singh, one secret information was received that appellant – Baldev Singh is habitual in selling of poppy-husk and if raid is conducted, he can be apprehended along with heavy quantity of poppy-husk. Information being reliable, a ruqa was sent to the police station for registration of FIR u/s 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short ‘NDPS Act’), for registration of the case against the accused. Wireless message for intimation was sent to DSP, Ferozepur also for reaching on spot to conduct raid. Two independent witnesses, namely, Gama Ram, Chowkidar of the village and Chanan Ram of village Chak Gubaya, were also joined for conducting raid at the house of accused in village Taranwali, where he was found present. DSP Joginder Singh also reached at the spot. In the presence of the members of the police team, including DSP Joginder Singh and independent witnesses, on the basis of disclosure statement, eastern side of the courtyard of the house was dug out and from where, one drum containing poppy-husk and covered with a gunny bag was recovered. Out of the recovered poppy husk, 250 grams of poppy-husk was drawn by Inspector Harbans Singh for putting it in a separate parcel and remaining bulk weighing total 54.00 kg of poppy-husk was put into two gunny bags (each containing 27.00 kg of poppy-husk). Seals of HS were LAVISHA 2026.07.30 13:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRA-S-1033-SB-2005 (O&M) 3 affixed on the residue and the sample parcel by Inspector Harbans Singh. Seal after use was handed-over to ASI Jagdish Lal. After supplying the grounds of arrest, accused was arrested and the investigation was started. 3. On 17.07.1998, accused and the case property were produced before the Illaqa Magistrate. After completion of investigation, final report/challan was submitted under Section 15 of the NDPS Act, and accordingly, accused was charged by the trial Court also. During the course of recording of evidence, prosecution examined total five witnesses, i.e.- i. PW1 – ASI Jagdish Lal - One of the witnesses of recovery. ii. PW2 – Constable Gurmeet Singh - Who deposited the sample seal, sample parcel(s) and docket in the office of Chemical Examiner, Jalandhar under the direction of Inspector Harbans Singh. iii. PW3 – DSP Joginder Kumar - Who deposed to the recovery proceedings. iv. PW4 – ASI Joginder Singh - Who deposed the case property along with sample seal, which was produced by him before the Illaqa Magistrate, on the directions of Inspector Harbans Singh. v. PW5 – Inspector Harbans Singh - Investigating Officer of the case. He proved the complete investigation of the case and also received secret information. 4. Following documents were also proved on record by the prosecution:- i. Disclosure Statement - Ex.P-1 ii. Recovery Memo of the case property - Ex.P-2 iii. Personal Search Memo - Ex.P-3 iv. Grounds of Arrest Memo - Ex.P-4 v. Ruqa - Ex.P-5/A LAVISHA 2026.07.30 13:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRA-S-1033-SB-2005 (O&M) 4 vi. FIR - Ex.P-6/A vii. Site Plan - Ex.P-7 viii. Report of Chemical Examiner - Ex.P-8 ix. Application moved to the Illaqa Magistrate for authentication of the case property - Ex.P-5 x. Order passed by learned Illaqa Magistrate on the said application - Ex.P-6 5. In the statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C., entire allegations were denied by the accused – Baldev Singh and that nothing was recovered from his possession. As per statement, SHO Mamdot had called him to the police station through some constable, but he did not go there. SHO got annoyed and on 16.07.1998, when accused had gone to attend the Court, from there, he was picked up and taken to the police station and later on, falsely implicated in the present case. 6. Two independent witnesses, who were joined while Investigating Officer (IO) raided the house of accused and narcotic contraband was recovered from the drum, appeared in defence of the accused, as DW1 – Gama Ram and DW2 – Chanan Singh. As per their deposition, no such recovery was effected from the accused in their presence, rather, about five years and two months earlier, Joginder Singh (father of the accused), came to them and informed that accused – Baldev Singh was arrested by the police of police station Mamdot from the Court, and when they both went to police station, there ASI Harbans Singh met them and he got their thumb impressions on two blank LAVISHA 2026.07.30 13:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRA-S-1033-SB-2005 (O&M) 5 papers. Sarpanch of the village, namely, Bhagwan Singh, also appeared as DW3, who stated that accused – Baldev Singh, was residing along with his father and other family members in his house, and there was a common courtyard. Defence version was also supported by him. Accused proved on record certified copy of the order dated 16.07.1998 as Ex.D-1 and certified copy of the judgment dated 02.09.1998 as Ex.D-2. Wrongly numbered photocopies of disclosure statement as Ex.D-1, and recovery memo as Ex.D-2 along with ruqa Ex.D-3 and site plan as Ex.D-4, were also proved by the accused from the statements of the prosecution witnesses. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that testimony of all the five prosecution witnesses itself demolishes the case of the prosecution, as they have made contradictory statements regarding the alleged recovery as well as presence of the independent witnesses. It is submitted that even the prosecution story regarding summoning and presence of the independent witnesses, namely Gama Ram Chowkidar and Chanan Singh, loses all significance in view of the statement of ASI Jagdish Lal, who admitted that both the witnesses were called from the village by a constable on the instructions of the senior police officers. It is further argued that joining of the said co-villagers could be of some credibility to the prosecution version, had they been associated with the proceedings prior to reaching of police to the house of the appellant. LAVISHA 2026.07.30 13:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRA-S-1033-SB-2005 (O&M) 6 None of the prosecution witnesses could explained the manner in which the drum, allegedly containing the recovered poppy husk, was concealed. As per the case of the prosecution, the drum was recovered from a pit; however, there is no explanation as to how it was concealed therein. Likewise, prosecution has failed to explain who arranged the two gunny bags in which the alleged recovered poppy husk, weighing 27 kilograms each, was transferred. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant further refers to the testimony of PW-3 Joginder Kumar, DSP, who stated that SHO-Harbans Singh, sealed the two gunny bags as well as the sample parcel with his seal bearing the impression "HS" and kept the specimen seal impression separately. However, the seal was thereafter handed over to ASI Jagdish Lal. It is argued that when the independent witnesses, namely Gama Chowkidar and Chanan Singh, were admittedly present at the spot, seal ought to have been entrusted to one of them, in accordance with the settled practice, to lend authenticity to the prosecution version and to establish that independent witnesses, in fact, remained present during the recovery proceedings. 9. Referring to the cross-examination of PW-3 Joginder Kumar, DSP, learned counsel submits that the witness admitted that he had no knowledge regarding the colour or dimensions of the cloth with which the drum was allegedly covered. Also, he was unable to state, whether the said cloth was ever taken into possession after being removed from the drum. LAVISHA 2026.07.30 13:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRA-S-1033-SB-2005 (O&M) 7 It is argued that such lack of knowledge is wholly unnatural for a Gazetted Officer, who claims to have supervised the recovery proceedings. The witness further admitted that he neither knew whether the appellant's parents were residing in the house nor he made any inquiry in that regard. It is further submitted that PW-3 made another significant admission by stating that he did not know the number of rooms in the appellant's house or the area over which the house was constructed. More importantly, he admitted that his own seal was never affixed on either the sample parcel or the recovered contraband. It is submitted that this omission assumes considerable significance because affixation of the Gazetted Officer's seal would have authenticated both his presence at the spot and his supervision of the recovery proceedings. On a holistic reading of the testimony of PW-3, it is contended that the said witness never actually visited the appellant's house and was not even present at the time of recovery. Consequently, absence of the seal of Gazetted Officer on the sample parcel and the recovered contraband clearly indicates non-compliance with the statutory safeguards, requiring the recovery to be effected in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. 10. Learned counsel further refers to the testimony of PW-5 Inspector Harbans Singh and submits that although FIR (Ex.P-6) was registered by ASI Banta Singh, but the said officer was never examined before the Court. Consequently, FIR itself remains unproved. It is further argued that FSL report also suffers from a serious LAVISHA 2026.07.30 13:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRA-S-1033-SB-2005 (O&M) 8 infirmity, as no specimen seal was noticed or proved during the course of evidence. Therefore, it remains unestablished whether the sample allegedly sent for chemical examination, was the very same sample drawn from the recovered contraband, or whether the substance examined by the Chemical Examiner was or not, a prohibited substance under the NDPS Act. 11. Again referring to the testimony of PW-5, Inspector Harbans Singh, learned counsel points out that the witness made a clear admission regarding the condition of drum produced before the trial Court. He admitted that mouth of the drum produced in Court, was closed in such a manner that poppy husk could not have been put into it. It is submitted that, this admission itself renders the prosecution story regarding concealment and recovery from the drum highly doubtful. 12. It is further argued that prosecution has failed to examine the Malkhana In-charge or the Moharrir Head Constable, thereby creating a serious gap in the chain of custody. This omission assumes greater significance in view of the testimony of PW-2 Constable Gurmit Singh, who stated that on 20.07.1998, Inspector Harbans Singh handed over to him one sample parcel, containing 250 grams of poppy husk, along with the specimen seal and the forwarding docket for depositing the same in the office of Chemical Examiner. As per PW-2, on 20.07.1998, docket was first forwarded through the office of Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur, and the sample was ultimately deposited on 21.07.1998. However, neither any LAVISHA 2026.07.30 13:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRA-S-1033-SB-2005 (O&M) 9 documentary record nor any witness from the office of the SSP, Ferozepur, was produced to establish the movement and safe custody of the sample during this period. Thus, another crucial link in the chain of custody remains missing, creating doubt as to whether the sample remained intact while it was with Constable Gurmit Singh (PW-2). This aspect assumes even greater importance, because PW-5 Inspector Harbans Singh admitted during cross- examination that neither the specimen seal nor impression of the seal was available on the report of the Chemical Examiner. 13. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that prosecution's failure to examine the independent witnesses assumes considerable significance, particularly when the appellant examined them as defence witnesses. As per DW-3 Bhagwan Singh (Sarpanch), appellant's father informed him about five and a quarter years earlier that appellant had been apprehended by the police from the Court complex. Thereafter, Bhagwan Singh, along with Chowkidar Gama (DW-1) and Chanan Singh (DW-2), went to the police station. It is, thus, contended that defence evidence also completely demolishes the prosecution version, regarding the alleged arrest and recovery from the appellant's house. Since, prosecution completely failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, appellant is entitled to be acquitted. 14. Per contra, learned State counsel submitted that prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is argued that recovery was effected in the presence of PW-3 DSP Joginder Kumar, a LAVISHA 2026.07.30 13:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRA-S-1033-SB-2005 (O&M) 10 Gazetted Officer, thereby ensuring due compliance with the statutory safeguards under the NDPS Act. Prosecution has duly established the complete chain of circumstances, and recovery of commercial quantity of poppy husk, pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the appellant from his house, stands fully proved through the evidence led on record. Learned State counsel further contended that the fact that two of the independent witnesses were examined by the appellant himself as defence witnesses, clearly indicates that they had been won over by the appellant after the recovery of poppy husk from his house. Also, it is submitted that discrepancies pointed out by the counsel for the appellant are only minor and inconsequential contradictions, which are bound to occur when witnesses depose after a considerable lapse of time from the date of registration of the FIR. Such trivial inconsistencies do not go to the root of the prosecution case and cannot be made a ground to discard the strong evidence, which otherwise is reliable and cogent. Therefore, State argued that prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, and there being no material infirmity or lacuna in the prosecution case, warranting any interference by this Court. Consequently, present appeal deserves to be dismissed, and judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court are liable to be affirmed. 15. This Court heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and has also carefully perused the entire record available LAVISHA 2026.07.30 13:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRA-S-1033-SB-2005 (O&M) 11 before it. 16. In the present case, alleged recovery from the appellant is 54 kilograms and 250 grams of poppy husk. As per prosecution, on receipt of secret information, a ruqa was sent to the police station on 16.07.1998 at about 5.00/5.10 p.m., even though, by that time, no recovery had been effected. It is not the case of the prosecution that appellant, who was about 30 years of age at the relevant time, had any previous criminal antecedents or was ever been found involved in any offence under the NDPS Act. Thus, very basis of the secret information remains unexplained. Neither prosecution disclosed the source nor explained what prompted the secret informer to implicate a person, having no previous involvement in offences of a similar nature. Even assuming that such secret information had indeed been received, there appears to be undue haste in registering the FIR, merely on the basis thereof, without any prior verification or surveillance. Ordinarily, where the suspect has no criminal antecedents and recovery, is yet to be effected, police would first act upon the information and, upon recovery of any narcotic substance, initiate the formal criminal proceedings. Prompt registration of the FIR solely on the basis of the secret information, in the peculiar facts of the present case, creates a reasonable doubt regarding fairness of the investigation, and gives rise to an apprehension that the proceedings might not have been conducted, in the manner projected before the Court. LAVISHA 2026.07.30 13:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRA-S-1033-SB-2005 (O&M) 12 17. While examining the record, this Court further noticed a serious gap in the chain of custody of the alleged contraband. Prosecution has failed to examine any official witness from the police station to establish that after recovery on 16.07.1998 at about 6.00 p.m., case property and the sample parcels were deposited in the malkhana according to the prescribed procedure. PW-2 Constable Gurmit Singh, merely stated that on 20.07.1998 Inspector Harbans Singh handed over to him one sample parcel, specimen seal and the forwarding docket for depositing the sample with the Chemical Examiner. However, there is absolutely no evidence on record to indicate where the sample parcel and the residue parcels remained from 16.07.1998 till 20.07.1998. Similarly, PW-4 ASI Joginder Singh deposed that on 17.07.1998, SHO Harbans Singh entrusted him two bags containing 27 kilograms of poppy husk each, one sample parcel weighing 250 grams, two empty gunny bags, one iron drum and arrested the appellant for his production before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ferozepur. Significantly, even this witness does not explain, where the case property remained from the evening of 16.07.1998 until it was allegedly handed over to him on the following day. It was only during his deposition before the trial Court that PW- 5 Inspector Harbans Singh (Investigating Officer), for the first time stated that he had retained the entire case property in his personal custody throughout the night and handed it over to DSP Joginder Singh on the next LAVISHA 2026.07.30 13:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRA-S-1033-SB-2005 (O&M) 13 day. Such a conduct on the part of the Investigating Officer is wholly irregular and contrary to the established procedure, governing the handling of seized contraband. Once the recovery of narcotic contraband and that too, commercial quantity, had already been effected in the presence of police officials and independent witnesses, there was no justification for retaining the case property in his personal custody, instead of depositing it in the malkhana after making the requisite entries in the official record. This unexplained deviation from the prescribed procedure casts a serious doubt on the sanctity of the case property and integrity of the chain of custody. 18. Case of the prosecution is further weakened by the admission of the Investigating Officer that report of the Chemical Examiner does not record the presence of any specimen seal or seal impression accompanying the sample. Absence of such an essential safeguard creates a serious doubt, as to whether the sample examined by the Forensic Science Laboratory, was the same very sample, which had been drawn from the recovered contraband. Consequently, the link evidence, which is of paramount importance under the NDPS Act, remains incomplete. 19. Testimony of PW-3 Joginder Kumar, DSP, also does not inspire confidence. Despite claiming to have remained present during the recovery proceedings, he admitted that he had no knowledge regarding number of rooms in the appellant's house, extent of the property, or even whether any other members of the appellant's family were residing therein. He further admitted that he made no inquiry regarding the ownership or possession of LAVISHA 2026.07.30 13:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRA-S-1033-SB-2005 (O&M) 14 the house, from where the alleged recovery was effected. These omissions assume significance because a Gazetted Officer, whose presence is relied upon by the prosecution to establish compliance with the statutory safeguards, would ordinarily be expected to possess at least basic knowledge of the place, where the recovery was allegedly conducted. Further, no documentary or other reliable evidence could be produced to establish that PW-3 had received any wireless message, proceeded to the village in pursuance thereof, remained present during search, and thereafter returned. His presence at the spot is sought to be established, solely through his oral testimony. Significantly, although the prosecution claims that independent witnesses, i.e. the village Chowkidar and Chanan Singh, had been associated with the proceedings, neither specimen seal nor the seal after use, was entrusted to any of them. Had they actually remained present throughout the recovery proceedings, there was no plausible reason for not entrusting the seal to one of them. This omission lends support to the defence plea that the independent witnesses were not associated with the investigation, in the manner, projected by the prosecution. 20. Prosecution evidence also suffers from material contradictions regarding the manner of recovery, participation of members of the raiding party, and even the place from where appellant was allegedly apprehended. Evidence on record is insufficient to conclusively establish that appellant was arrested from his house in the manner projected by the prosecution. LAVISHA 2026.07.30 13:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRA-S-1033-SB-2005 (O&M) 15 21. Another circumstance creating doubt is the production of iron drum before the trial Court. Prosecution failed to satisfactorily explain, how the said drum could have contained the alleged quantity of poppy husk. Admission made by the Investigating Officer regarding the condition of the drum further renders the prosecution version doubtful. 22. Cumulative effect of the aforementioned infirmities cannot be ignored. Prosecution has even failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized contraband, mandatory link evidence remains deficient, testimony of the Gazetted Officer does not inspire confidence, independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution, and the material contradictions appearing in the prosecution evidence, remain unexplained. 23. It is a settled principle of law that in the cases under NDPS Act, where stringent punishments are prescribed, procedural safeguards and chain of safe and intact custody of recovered narcotic contraband along with sample parcel, must be established with utmost strictness. Any serious lapse in complying with these safeguards, necessarily enure to the benefit of the accused. 24. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, present appeal deserves to be allowed. 25. Consequently, in view of all the aforementioned discussions and with the support of the judgment, passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court, titled as ‘Surepally Srinivas vs. State of Andhra Pradesh’, 2025(2) RCR (Criminal) LAVISHA 2026.07.30 13:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRA-S-1033-SB-2005 (O&M) 16 437, present appeal is allowed. Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 18.05.2005, passed by learned trial Court, are hereby set aside. 26. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE July 30, 2026 J.Ram/Lavisha Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No LAVISHA 2026.07.30 13:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh