CRA-S-37-2025 (O & M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (274) CRA-S-37-2025 (O & M) Reserved on: 09.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement:13.07.2026 Date of Uploading :13.07.2026 Paramjit Kaur @ Pammi …... Appellant (s) V/s State of Punjab ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Ms. Kusum Raj, Legal Aid Counsel with Ms. Jasleen Chahal, Advocate (Amicus Curiae), for the appellant. Mr. Adeshwar S. Pannu, AAG, Punjab. **** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral) The present appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence 06.11.2024 passed by the Judge, Special Court, Hoshiarpur. 2. Briefly, the prosecution case is that on 23.05.2021, a police party headed by SI Jasvir Singh while on patrol duty in order to search for miscreants was going from Police Station to Adda Kandhala Jattan, Mirzapur Khadiala, Bancha Khurd and when the police party was at a short distance from T-Point Baincha Khurd, then a lady carrying a glazed envelope in her hand was spotted coming from the side of Bus Adda Baincha, who on spotting the police party tried to turn back. However on the basis of suspicion she was intercepted. On inquiry, she disclosed her name as Paramjit Kaur @ Pammi wife of Tarsem Lal resident of Choutala, SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.07.13 18:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRA-S-37-2025 (O & M) ::2:: Tehsil Tanda, District Hoshairpur. SI Jasvir Singh informed her about his name, rank, designation and posting and apprised her of her legal right of search in the presence of a gazetted officer or Magistrate. The accused reposed confidence for her search by SI Jasvir Singh. In this regard notice U/S 50 of the NDPS Act was given to the accused and a separate consent memo was prepared. Before conducting search of the glazed envelope of accused endeavors were made to join independent witnesses. However nobody agreed to the same. On the search of the glazed envelope it was found to contain 95 grams of intoxicant powder which was converted in the shape of a parcel and sealed bearing seal impression ‘JS’ and a separate seal impression was prepared and parcel was taken into possession vide separate memo. The sample seal chit was prepared. The seal after use was handed over to ASI Kuldip Singh. A written message was sent to the Police Station for registration of an FIR, whereupon the FIR was registered. During investigation, the spot was inspected and site plan was prepared. The accused was arrested. On coming back to the police station, the accused as well as the sealed parcel were produced before Inspector/SHO, who after verifying the facts from the accused affixed his seal impression “BS” on the parcel as well as sample seal. SI Jasvir Singh lodged the accused in the police lockup and deposited parcels with MHC. On 24.05.2021, the accused from the police lockup and parcel from police Malkhana were taken out by SI Jasvir Singh and produced before Learned Magistrate, who broke the seal impressions “JS/BS” on the parcel and took out two representative sample parcels of 10/10 grams of intoxicant powder from the bulk parcel and same SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.07.13 18:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRA-S-37-2025 (O & M) ::3:: were converted in the shape of separate parcels and sealed bearing seal impression “VK” (Magistrate) and ‘JS’ (IO). Form No.29 was also prepared. The parcels were again deposited in the police Malkhana. One sealed sample parcel was taken out by the MHC and handed over to the carrier to be deposited in the Forensic Science laboratory on 28.5.2021. The formalities were completed and challan was prepared and presented in the Court. 3. On presentation of the challan, charges under Section 22 NDPS Act were framed against the accused-appellant (hereinafter to be known as ‘the appellant’). 4. Thereafter, the prosecution examined PW1 SI Jasvir Singh, PW2 ASI Kuldeep Singh, PW3 C.Malkiat Singh, PW4 ASI Vishnu Ram, PW5 LC Baljit Kumari, PW6 Inspector Bikram Singh and the prosecution closed its evidence. 5. The statements of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called as Cr.P.C in short), in which all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the statement of the prosecution witnesses, against the accused, were put to her, to which, she denied and pleaded her innocence and false implication. 6. Based on the evidence led, the appellant came to be convicted vide judgment dated 06.11.2024 as under:- SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.07.13 18:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRA-S-37-2025 (O & M) ::4:: Sr. No. Name of the Convict Offence under Section Sentence Fine Sentence In default of payment of fine 1. Paramjit Kaur @ Pammi 22 NDPS Act RI 01 year Rs.10,000/- RI 03 months 7. The aforementioned judgment is under challenge in the present petition. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant alongwith Ms. Jasleen Chahal, Amicus Curiae contend that Section 50 of the NDPS Act has not been complied with in its true spirit. The empowered officer ought to have informed the accused that she had the right to be searched before the Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. Failure to comply with the provisions renders the recovery suspect. Further, no independent witness was joined at the time of search and seizure and the case of the prosecution is based on the testimony of official witnesses alone. They, therefore, contend that the impugned judgment dated 06.11.2024 is liable to be set aside. 9. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends that as the recovery was from a packet carried by the appellant in her hand, Section 50 of the Act was not required to be complied with. However, by way of abundant caution as the person of the appellant was to be searched, she was asked whether she wanted her search to be conducted before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate and she reposed faith in the investigation officer. Non-examination of independent witnesses or the case of the prosecution being based on the testimony of official witnesses does not SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.07.13 18:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRA-S-37-2025 (O & M) ::5:: render the prosecution version doubtful and therefore, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 11. Section 50 of the NDPS Act will apply if the recovery of the contraband is from the person of the accused i.e. body, clothing or footwear. The search of a bag/packet carried in hand would not require compliance of Section 50 of the Act. In the instant case, recovery is from a hand held packet. Be that as it may, the offer was given but it was the accused who stated that she was agreeable to be searched by the concerned investigating officer. Further, merely because no independent witness was examined or the case of the prosecution is based on the testimony of official witnesses would not create any doubt in the prosecution case. 12. It has also been brought to the notice of the Court that other than the present appeal emanating out of FIR No.115 dated 23.05.2021 under Section 22-61-85 of the NDPS Act, Police Station Tanda, District Hoshiarpur, the appellant is an accused/convict in multiple cases of a similar nature. The details of the same are as under:- Sr. No. FIR No./Dated Under Section(s) Police Station Status 1. 32/2016 dt.28.02.2016 21-61-85 NDPS Act Tanda Under Trial 2. 178/2012 dt.22.10.2012 15 NDPS Act Tanda Under Trial 3. 36/2022 dt.11.02.2022 22-61-85 NDPS Act Tanda Under Trial 4. 123/2022 dt.28.05.2022 22/29-61-85 NDPS Act Tanda Under Trial 5. 222/2013 dt.28.08.2013 15 NDPS Act Tanda Under Trial SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.07.13 18:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRA-S-37-2025 (O & M) ::6:: 6. 96/2013 dt.17.04.2013 22 NDPS Act Tanda Under Trial 7. 233/2025 dt.29.09.2025 15, 29 NDPS Act Tanda Under Trial 8. 107/2007 dt.27.09.2007 15 NDPS Act Hariana Convicted 13. Keeping in view the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, I find no merit in the present appeal and the same stands dismissed. 14. The pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. July 13, 2026 ( JASJIT SINGH BEDI) sukhpreet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.07.13 18:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh