1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-772-SB-2005 (O&M) Reserved on : 14.08.2026 Pronounced on : 27.08.2026 Baldev Singh ..... Appellant VERSUS State of Haryana ..... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present : Mr. B.S. Sewak, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG Haryana. ***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.04.2005, passed by the Court of learned Special Judge Kurukshetra, designated under NDPS Act, hereinafter being referred to as ‘trial Court’ only. 2. Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that one FIR, i.e. the FIR No.7 dated 05.02.2003, was registered at the instance of ‘ASI Desh Raj’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 21 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, hereinafter being referred to as ‘NDPS Act’, Police Station Babain. In view of abovementioned FIR, investigation was GAURAV THAKUR 2026.08.27 15:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 conducted by the police, and as an outcome of abovesaid investigation, the appellant was sent to face trial before the learned trial Court. 3. The appellant participated in the abovementioned trial which, by virtue of impugned judgment, culminated into conviction of the appellant. Thus, vide order dated 07.04.2005, on the point of quantum of sentence, following sentences was awarded to the appellant:- Name of convict Offence under Sections Sentence Baldev Singh 21 of NDPS Act Rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. 4. Aggrieved of the abovementioned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant. 5. In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of this case came into being at the instance of ‘ASI Desh Raj’, who had reported that on 05.02.2003, on receipt of a tip-off given by a reliable source, the residence of the appellant was raided in the presence of police officials and one independent witness, namely ‘Surjit Singh’, and from the house of appellant, 15 gms of smack was recovered. 6. It is case of the prosecution that pursuant to recovery of abovementioned contraband, necessary formalities with regard to seizure & sealing of contraband, lodging of FIR, and formal arrest of the accused were completed, and further investigation taken up. As per prosecution, during the GAURAV THAKUR 2026.08.27 15:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 course of investigation, the Investigating Officer inspected the spot, prepared rough site plan of the place of occurrence, recorded the statement of witnesses, under Section 161 CrPC, and completed usual formalities of investigation. As per prosecution, thereafter, the final report under Section 173 of CrPC was filed. 7. To discharge its burden with regard to charge against the appellant, 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 - Notice under Section 55 of NDPS Act Ex.PB - Affidavit of HC Jeet Singh Ex.PC - Affidavit of HC Shiv Lal Ex.PD - Notice under Section-50 of NDPS Act served upon the appellant Ex.PD/1 - Consent memo of appellant Ex.PE - Recovery memo of contraband Ex.PF - Grounds of arrest memo Ex.PG - Information memo sent to the police station (ruqqa) Ex.PG/1 - FIR Ex.PH - Report under Section-57 of NDPS Act Ex.PJ - Notice under Section-42 of NDPS Act Ex.PK - Rough site plan Ex.PL - FSL report Ex.PM - Statement under Section-161 CrPC 8. To provide support and corroboration to the above-mentioned documentary evidence, as many as nine witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Those were:- GAURAV THAKUR 2026.08.27 15:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 PW-1 - SI Sudhir Kumar PW-2 - HC Jeet Singh PW-3 - HC Shiv Lal PW-4 - ASI Tej Singh PW-5 - ASI Satpal Singh PW-6 - Ct. Gurminder Singh PW-7 - Ct. Hakam Singh PW-8 - ASI Desh Raj, the Investigating Officer PW-9 - SI Raj Kumar, Economic Cell, Yamuna Nagar. 9. Once the prosecution evidence was recorded, the learned trial Court completed essential formalities as enshrined under Section 313 CrPC. Thereafter, opportunity of defence evidence was afforded to the appellant. The appellant examined two witnesses, i.e DW-1 Surjit Singh and DW-2 Kanwarjit Singh. However, any evidence in documentary form was not adduced by the appellant. 10. Once the evidence was complete, the learned trial Court gave opportunity to the prosecution as well as appellant, to address arguments. Thereafter, a judgment of conviction against the appellant was pronounced. 11. Heard. 12. It has been contended on behalf of appellant that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence (both), being the outcome of non-application of judicial mind, deserve to be set aside. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the learned trial Court had failed to appreciate that necessary ingredients meant for the commission of offence GAURAV THAKUR 2026.08.27 15:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5 under Section 21 of NDPS Act could not be established by the prosecution as per the standard prescribed under the law. As per learned counsel for the appellant, merely, on the basis of conjectures and surmises, as well as assumptions and presumptions, the learned trial Court held that charges against the appellant were proved. The learned counsel for the appellant has further contended that the appellant was wrongly held guilty, and convicted by the learned trial Court, and therefore, there is need of interference in the impugned judgment, by exercising the appellate jurisdiction. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant has also taken alternative plea. It is with regard to quantum of sentence. As per learned counsel for the appellant, the incident had taken place way back in the year 2003 and since 2003 itself, the appellant is facing the agony of litigation, i.e. for the last more than 23 years. According to learned counsel for the appellant, in view of above the appellant has already suffered more punishment than he deserved. 14. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the appellant has also argued that in the present case, the appellant has already served a sentence for a period of twenty seven days. It has further been contended that the offence in question is the first offence committed by the appellant, and that after the offence, related to present case, the appellant has not been prosecuted for any other offence. GAURAV THAKUR 2026.08.27 15:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 6 15. Per contra, the learned State Counsel has argued that the appellant has been found guilty for the commission of offence punishable under Section 21 of NDPS. According to learned State Counsel, the sentence awarded to the appellant, i.e. imprisonment for a period of three months, is already on lower side, and that the appellant is not entitled to a sentence of imprisonment for a period of less than three months. As per learned State Counsel, the instant appeal has no merit and deserves dismissal. 16. The record has been perused carefully. 17. If the facts and circumstances of the present case are analyzed, it transpires that the entire prosecution case is resting upon the plea that on receipt of a tip-off, first of all information to Senior Police Officer was given and thereafter, raid was conducted. As per case, set-out by the prosecution, before conducting raid, attempt was made to join two persons of the locality, including Sarpanch of the village. However, as per prosecution, out of abovementioned two persons, only one person, namely ‘Surjit Singh’, joined the proceedings as witness of recovery. 18. To prove abovementioned allegations, the prosecution in the present case had examined as many as three witnesses, i.e. PW-4, PW-6 and PW-8. All of them were official witnesses. However, it is relevant to note here that the most material witness, which could have supported the prosecution case to a very large extent, was the independent witness ‘Surjit Singh’. But ‘Surjit Singh’ was not examined by the prosecution, as its GAURAV THAKUR 2026.08.27 15:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7 witness during the course of trial. Rather ‘Surjit Singh’ appeared as a defence witness, wherein he belied the prosecution case and testified that on 05.02.2003, in his presence nothing was recovered from the house of appellant. 19. It is also relevant to mention here that as per prosecution story, before conducting raid, the Sarpanch of the village, namely ‘Kanwarjit Singh’, was also approached by the police party, but he had refused to join the raiding party as a witness. However, this stand of the prosecution, too, has been belied by ‘Kanwarjit Singh’, who appeared in the witness-box as ‘DW-2’, and testified that ‘ASI Desh Raj’, the Investigating Officer, had never met him in the Village before conducting raid at the residence of appellant. 20. In the absence of testimonies of abovementioned two public witnesses, the entire prosecution case, with regard to recovery of contraband, was resting upon the deposition of three official-witnesses, i.e. PW-4, PW-6 and PW-8. However, if the testimonies of PW-4, PW-6 and PW-8 would have been properly examined, it would have transpired that on several crucial aspects, the abovementioned witnesses deposed contradictory facts, such contradiction cropped-up despite the fact that they all were witnesses to the same incident, such as:- i. As per PW-4, for completing paper work, the Investigating Officer had used the bonnet of the official vehicle, but as per GAURAV THAKUR 2026.08.27 15:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 8 PW-6 & PW-8, a chair was procured from a neighbouring shop and by sitting on the chair, paper work was completed; ii. As per PW-4, on the date of recovery, the police team had left their office at 10:30 am, but as per PW-6 at 10:00 am and as per PW-8 at 01:00 am; iii. According to PW-4, police party reached the place, where the information was received at 12:30 pm, but as per PW-6 at 11:45 am; and iv. As per PW-4, information was received by the Investigating Officer at 01:00 pm, but as per PW-6 at 12:00 noon. 21. The contradictions, which have surfaced in the testimonies of official witnesses, lead to the conclusion that unless corroborated in material witnesses particularly by some reliable evidence, the testimonies of abovementioned three officials witnesses cannot be believed. In the present case, ‘Surjit Singh’ and ‘Kanwarjit Singh’ could have been the most crucial witnesses of the prosecution for providing support and corroboration to abovementioned stand of the prosecution. However, both the abovementioned witnesses did not support the prosecution case. 22. In addition to above, it is also relevant to mention here that the manner, in which compliance of Section-50 of NDPS Act was made by the Investigating Officer, was questionable, too. As per memo, prepared by the Investigating Officer for the compliance of Section-50 of NDPS Act, triple options were given to the appellant, which were:- i. Search of person in the presence of Magistrate; GAURAV THAKUR 2026.08.27 15:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 9 ii. Search of person in the presence of Gazetted Officer; and iii. Search of person by the Investigating Officer in the presence of two respectable persons of the village. 23. According to the case, set-out by the prosecution, the appellant had exercised third option, which means that search of the house/person of appellant was to be conducted in the presence of two respectables of the village. However, the memo prepared by the Investigating Officer shows that one resident of the village was joined at the time of search. Thus, even the third condition, which was otherwise not in conformity with the law, was not complied with. 24. With regard to compliance of Section-50 of NDPS Act, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘The State of Himachal Pradesh V/s Surat Singh’ Criminal Appeal No.96 of 2018, has held that Section-50 of NDPS Act was violated if accused was wrongly offered for the search before independent witnesses, instead of Magistrate or Gazetted Officer. 25. Taking into consideration the fact that testimonies of official witnesses with regard to recovery of contraband from the possession of appellant, were not reliable, being contradictory on material points, and the case set-out by the prosecution could not be proved for want of any support of independent witness, and that the compliance of Section-50 of NDPS Act was not in accordance with law, it is hereby held that in the given facts and circumstances, the judgment of acquittal should have been passed by the GAURAV THAKUR 2026.08.27 15:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 10 learned trial Court. Thus, in my considered opinion, the learned trial Court, while rendering a judgment of conviction against the petitioner, committed an error of judgment. Accordingly, it is hereby observed that there is need for exercise of appellate jurisdiction vested in this Court, to interfere in the verdict rendered by the learned trial Court. 26. As a sequel to abovementioned observations, it is hereby held that the present appeal deserves to be allowed. Hence, the present appeal is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are hereby set aside and as a result thereof, the appellant is hereby acquitted of the charges framed against him. 27. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of, accordingly. (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 27.08.2026 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No GAURAV THAKUR 2026.08.27 15:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document