Punjab-Haryana High Court
Malkiat Singh vs State Of Punjab on 4 November, 2025
Bench: Lisa Gill, Meenakshi I. Mehta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(1) CRA-D No.523-DB of 2015 (O&M)
Date of Decision:04.11.2025
Malkiat Singh
...Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
(2) CRA-D No.526-DB of 2015 (O&M)
Rajjo Bai @ Rajan
...Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA
Argued by:- Mr. D.N. Ganeriwala, Advocate and
Mr. Kanisth Ganeriwala, Advocate
for the appellants (in both the appeals).
Mr. Raghav Garg, AAG, Punjab
for the respondent-State (in both the appeals).
*****
Meenakshi I. Mehta, J.
Both the above-captioned Criminal Appeals are being taken
up together for discussion and adjudication as these have arisen out of the
same judgment and order on sentence, handed down by learned Judge,
Special Court, Ferozepur (for short 'the trial Court'), on 01.04.2014 in the
criminal case arising out of FIR No.09 dated 24.01.2013 registered at
1 of 18
CRA-D No.523-DB of 2015 (O&M)
and other connected case -2-
Police Station Lakho Ke Behram, under Sections 21, 25 & 29 of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the
Act'), whereby appellants Malkiat Singh and Rajjo Bai have been held
guilty for committing the offence punishable under Section 21 of the Act
and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of
12 years and pay a fine of Rs. one (01) lac each and in case of default in
payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 06 months.
2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts, culminating in the filing
of instant appeals, are that on 24.01.2013, Inspector/SHO Gobinder Singh,
along-with some other police officials, was present at Bus Stand in the area
of Village Karma, in connection with patrolling duty and for checking the
suspected persons. There, he received a secret information that appellant
Malkiat Singh had been indulging in smuggling of heroin from Pakistan and
he had received total fourteen (14) packets from the smugglers on Indo-Pak
Border and six (06) packets of heroin had already been recovered from him
during the previous week and eight (08) packets had been kept concealed in
his house and his wife, i.e appellant Rajjo Bai, was having knowledge of the
same and on her interrogation, the afore-said contraband could be recovered
from her possession. On receipt of this information, a 'ruqa' was forwarded
to the police station for registration of the case. Sh. Baljit Singh, Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division Guru Har Sahai, was requested to
arrive at the spot and he met the police party at the outskirts of the village.
Then, they reached at the house of the appellants and appellant Rajjo Bai
was found present there. After disclosing his identity, the above-named
2 of 18
CRA-D No.523-DB of 2015 (O&M)
and other connected case -3-
DSP informed her (Rajjo Bai) that she was required to be interrogated and
she could opt for the same in presence of any other Gazetted Officer but the
afore-said appellant reposed faith in him vide Consent Statement Exhibit
PF. During her interrogation, she disclosed that eight (08) packets of heroin
were kept near the 'Killa' (peg for tethering cattle) by digging the earth and
this fact was in her exclusive knowledge and she could get those packets
recovered. Then, in pursuance of her disclosure statement Exhibit PG, she
got the said packets of heroin recovered from the disclosed place. Two (02)
samples, each weighing 05 grams, were separated out from each packet and
these samples, along-with the remaining heroin in these packets, which
weighed 990 grams each, were sealed with the seals bearing impressions
'GS' and 'BS'. Specimen seal was prepared on Form M-29. Appellant Rajjo
Bai was arrested. Site-plan was prepared and the statements of witnesses had
also been recorded. While returning from the spot, the police party met SI
Gurjant Singh, SHO Police Station Mamdot, at Village Murkwala and the
entire case property as well as appellant Rajjo Bai and the witnesses were
produced before him and on verification of facts of the case, he (SI) sealed
sixteen (16) sample parcels and eight (08) bulk parcels with his own seal
having impression 'GS'. Further necessary investigation was, then, carried
out and on completion thereof, Challan/Police Report under Section 173
Cr.P.C was prepared against the appellants and was presented in the Court.
3. After hearing learned Public Prosecutor for the State and
learned defence counsel and perusing the Challan/Final Police Report as
also the documents annexed therewith, learned trial Court framed the
3 of 18
CRA-D No.523-DB of 2015 (O&M)
and other connected case -4-
charge against the appellants under Sections 21 and 29 of the Act. They
pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.
4. In order to bring home the guilt of appellants, the prosecution
examined as many as four (04) witnesses namely SI Gurjant Singh as PW1,
Constable Jaspreet Singh as PW2, DSP Baljit Singh as PW3 and DSP
Gobinder Singh as PW4. Then, learned Public Prosecutor for the State closed
the prosecution evidence. Thereafter, the appellants were examined under
Section 313 Cr.P.C to explain the incriminating material/circumstances,
appearing against them in the prosecution evidence, as led on record, wherein
they pleaded innocence and stated that they had falsely been got implicated in
the present case, consequent upon the registration of FIR No.08 dated
19.01.2013 against appellant Malkiat Singh and appellant Rajjo Bai further
stated that she had no concern with her husband as he had already left the
house in 2011. They tendered photostat copies of the News item and FIR as
Marks DA, DB and DC in their defence evidence. After hearing learned
counsel for the parties and appraising the record, learned trial Court held the
appellants guilty and awarded sentence to them, as already described in the
opening para of this judgment.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as
learned counsel for the respondent-State in the instant appeals and have
also gone through the record carefully.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants have contended that the
details/contents of the secret information, as allegedly received by PW4
Gobinder Singh regarding concealment of the contraband in the house of
4 of 18
CRA-D No.523-DB of 2015 (O&M)
and other connected case -5-
appellants, had not been reduced into writing nor any intimation in respect
thereof, was sent to the superior officer as mandated in Section 42 of the Act
and this infirmity eats into the vitals of entire case of prosecution and makes
it highly doubtful. They have also contended that as per prosecution version,
the samples of heroin had been drawn and the same, along-with bulk parcels,
were sealed at the spot itself whereas Section 52-A(2)(c) of the Act provides
for drawing such samples in the presence of Magistrate and non-compliance
of these provisions renders the trial proceedings and the impugned judgment
and order on sentence, illegal. To buttress this contention, they have placed
reliance upon the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bothilal
vs. The Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau 2023(2) RCR
(Criminal) 828; Simranjit Singh vs. State of Punjab, Criminal Appeal
No.1443 of 2023; Yusuf @ Asif vs. State 2023 INSC 912; Bharat Aambale
vs. State of Chhattisgarh 2025 INSC 78; Surepally Srinivas vs. The State
of Andhra Pradesh (now State of Telangana) 2025 INSC 414 and by the
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Charan Singh vs. State of Punjab
CRA-D No.1002-DB of 2007. They have, further, contended that the sole
independent witness named Gurmeet Singh has not been examined by the
prosecution and has, rather, been given up for his having been won over by
the appellants and this fact also casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution
version. Their next contention is that the alleged recovery of heroin had been
affected on 24.01.2013 but the samples were sent to the FSL on 04.02.2013
and thus, there was a delay of eleven (11) days in sending the samples for
chemical examination thereof and this delay also goes to the roots of the case
5 of 18
CRA-D No.523-DB of 2015 (O&M)
and other connected case -6-
and makes it doubtful. Their another contention is that as per the prosecution
version, the contraband (heroin), as allegedly recovered in the present case
and in the case registered vide FIR No.08 dated 19.01.2013, pertained to
single bulk/consignment and therefore, such recovery constituted one offence
but two (02) FIRs were registered and separate trials have been conducted in
respect thereof and appellant Malkiat Singh has been awarded punishment in
each of these two (02) cases, which has resulted in double jeopardy to him.
Lastly, they have contended that appellant Rajjo Bai had no concern with the
alleged recovery of heroin as her husband, appellant Malkiat Singh, had left
the home in 2011, i.e much prior thereto and they have urged that in view of
the above-discussed facts and circumstances, the instant appeals deserve to
be allowed and the appellants are, therefore, entitled to their acquittal.
7. Per-contra, learned State counsel has argued that there is no
violation of the provisions contained in Sections 42 and 52-A(2)(c) of the
Act and the case property, along-with appellant Rajjo Bai, had been
produced before the concerned Magistrate on 25.01.2013, i.e the very next
day of recovery of the contraband and the seals, as affixed on samples, had
been found to be intact, as mentioned in FSL Report Exhibit PD and
specified by the Magistrate as well, in her order dated 25.01.2013 and mere
non-examination of the independent witness does not make the testimonies
of official witnesses doubtful and then, FIRs No.08 and 09 were registered
on two (02) different dates and occasions qua the recovery of separate
quantities of heroin and hence, the question of double jeopardy does not
arise at all and it being so, the present appeals are liable to be dismissed.
6 of 18
CRA-D No.523-DB of 2015 (O&M)
and other connected case -7-
8. As regards the contention qua non-compliance of the provisions
contained in Section 42 of the Act, it is worth-while to mention here that
Exhibit PI is the 'ruqa' sent by PW4 Gobinder Singh to the police station
wherein the factum of receipt of secret information regarding concealment of
heroin in the house of the appellants, finds specific mention and it has also
been categorically recorded in it that DSP Baljit Singh was being informed
to arrive at the spot. Further, Exhibit PJ is the copy of FIR and in the police
proceedings recorded therein, it has been mentioned that Special Police
Reports, after preparation thereof, were being sent to the Area Magistrate
and higher officers. While appearing as PW3, the afore-named DSP, has also
specifically deposed during his examination-in-chief itself that he had
received a wireless message from Inspector Gobinder Singh (PW4) qua the
receipt of secret information, with a request to him (PW3) to arrive at the
spot and he had interrogated appellant Rajjo Bai after seeking her consent in
this regard. He has further made depositions in respect of the disclosure
statement suffered by Rajjo Bai and recovery of eight (08) packets of heroin
at her instance and drawing of samples and affixation of seals thereon by
him and PW4 as well. Undisputedly, Deputy Superintendent of Police is a
Gazetted Officer and is superior to the Inspector/SHO, in the departmental
hierarchy. Thus, PW3 (DSP) had not only received a wireless message but
had also reached/arrived at the spot and had participated in the investigation
proceedings, including the recovery of contraband in question. It has been
held by the Apex Court in M. Prabhulal vs. Assistant Director, Directorate
of Revenue Intelligence (2003) 8 SCC 449 that "Section 42(2) of the Act
7 of 18
CRA-D No.523-DB of 2015 (O&M)
and other connected case -8-
does not apply when a Gazetted Officer himself makes an arrest or conducts
search and seizure". These observations are fully applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the instant case and in the light thereof, it becomes quite
explicit that the provisions as contained in Section 42 of the Act, stood duly
complied with in this case.
9. So far as the contention regarding non-compliance of Section
52-A(2)(c) is concerned, the same is devoid of merit because as mentioned
earlier, the case property and appellant Rajjo Bai had been produced before
the concerned Magistrate on 25.01.2013, i.e on the very next day of alleged
recovery of contraband (heroin) and in her order passed on the same day on
the Inventory Report presented under Section 52 of the Act, the Magistrate
has specifically mentioned that she had gone through the seals attached on
the case property and the seals bearing impressions 'GS', 'BS' and 'GS'
were intact and accordingly, the inventory was certified. The verdicts as
rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bothilal (supra) (DOD 26.04.2023),
Simranjit Singh (supra) (DOD 09.05.2023) and Yusuf @ Asif (supra)
(DOD 13.10.2023) are of no avail to the appellants in view of the subsequent
observations made by the Apex Court in Narcotics Control Bureau vs.
Kashif 2024 INSC 1045 (decided on 20.12.2024) and the judgment passed
by the Co-ordinate Bench in Charan Singh (supra) (DOD 19.12.2024)
would also not come to the rescue of the appellants in view of the following
observations made in Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Kashif (supra): -
"35. None of the provisions in the Act prohibits sample to
be taken on the spot at the time of seizure, much less
Section 52A of the said Act. On the contrary, as per the
8 of 18
CRA-D No.523-DB of 2015 (O&M)
and other connected case -9-
procedure laid down in the Standing Orders and
Notifications issued by the NCB and the Central
Government before and after the insertion of Section 52A
till the Rules of 2022 were framed, the concerned officer
was required to take samples of the seized contraband
substances on the spot of recovery in duplicate in
presence of the Panch witnesses and the person in whose
possession the drug or substance recovered, by drawing
a Panchnama. It was only with regard to the remnant
substance, the procedure for disposal of the said
substance was required to be followed as prescribed in
Section 52A.
36. At this stage, we must deal with the recent judgments
in case of Simarnjit vs. State of Punjab, (Criminal
Appeal No.1443/2023), in case of Yusuf @ Asif vs. State
(2023 SCC Online SC 1328), and in case of Mohammed
Khalid and Another vs. State of Telangana ((2024) 5
SCC 393) in which the convictions have been set aside by
this Court on finding non-compliance of Section 52A and
relying upon the observations made in case of Mohanlal.
Apart from the fact that the said cases have been decided
on the facts of each case, none of the judgments has
proposed to lay down any law either with regard to
Section 52A or on the issue of admissibility of any other
evidence collected during the course of trial under the
NDPS Act. Therefore, we have considered the legislative
history of Section 52A and other Statutory Standing
Orders as also the judicial pronouncements, which
clearly lead to an inevitable conclusion that delayed
compliance or non-compliance of Section 52A neither
vitiates the trial affecting conviction nor can be a sole
ground to seek bail. In our opinion, the decisions of
Constitution Benches in case of Pooran Mal and Baldev
9 of 18
CRA-D No.523-DB of 2015 (O&M)
and other connected case -10-
Singh must take precedence over any observations made
in the judgments made by the benches of lesser strength,
which are made without considering the scheme, purport
and object of the Act and also without considering the
binding precedents.
37. It hardly needs to be reiterated that every law is
designed to further ends of justice and not to frustrate it
on mere technicalities. If the language of a Statute in its
ordinary meaning and grammatical construction leads a
manifest contradiction of the apparent purpose of the
enactment, a construction may be put upon it which
modifies the meaning of the words, or even the structure
of the sentence. It is equally settled legal position that
where the main object and intention of a statute are
clear, it must not be reduced to a nullity by the
draftsman's unskillfulness or ignorance of the law. In
Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, Tenth Edition at
page 229, the following passage is found: -
"Where the language of a statute, in its ordinary
meaning and grammatical construction, leads to a
manifest contradiction of the apparent purpose of
the enactment, or to some inconvenience or
absurdity, hardship or injustice, presumably not
intended, a construction may be put upon it which
modifies the meaning of the words, and even the
structure of the sentence. ... Where the main object
and intention of a statute are clear, it must not be
reduced to a nullity by the draftsman's
unskilfulness or ignorance of the law, except in a
case of necessity, or the absolute intractability of
the language used."
38. As observed by this Court in K.P. Varghese vs.
Income Tax Officer, Ernakulam and Another (1981) 4
10 of 18
CRA-D No.523-DB of 2015 (O&M)
and other connected case -11-
SCC 173, a statutory provision must be so construed, if it
is possible, that absurdity and mischief may be avoided.
Where the plain and literal interpretation of statutory
provision produces a manifestly absurd and unjust result,
the Court may modify the language used by the
Legislature or even do some violence to it, so as to
achieve the obvious intention of the Legislature and
produce a rational construction and just result.
39. The upshot of the above discussion may be
summarized as under:
(i) The provisions of NDPS Act are required to be
interpreted keeping in mind the scheme, object and
purpose of the Act; as also the impact on the
society as a whole. It has to be interpreted literally
and not liberally, which may ultimately frustrate
the object, purpose and Preamble of the Act.
(ii) While considering the application for bail, the
Court must bear in mind the provisions of Section
37 of the NDPS Act which are mandatory in
nature. Recording of findings as mandated in
Section 37 is sine qua non is known for granting
bail to the accused involved in the offences under
the NDPS Act.
(iii) The purpose of insertion of Section 52A laying
down the procedure for disposal of seized Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, was to ensure
the early disposal of the seized contraband drugs
and substances. It was inserted in 1989 as one of
the measures to implement and to give effect to the
International Conventions on the Narcotic drugs
and psychotropic substances.
(iv) Sub-section (2) of Section 52A lays down the
procedure as contemplated in sub-section (1)
11 of 18
CRA-D No.523-DB of 2015 (O&M)
and other connected case -12-
thereof, and any lapse or delayed compliance
thereof would be merely a procedural irregularity
which would neither entitle the accused to be
released on bail nor would vitiate the trial on that
ground alone.
(v) Any procedural irregularity or illegality found
to have been committed in conducting the search
and seizure during the course of investigation or
thereafter, would by itself not make the entire
evidence collected during the course of
investigation, inadmissible. The Court would have
to consider all the circumstances and find out
whether any serious prejudice has been caused to
the accused.
(vi) Any lapse or delay in compliance of Section
52A by itself would neither vitiate the trial nor
would entitle the accused to be released on bail.
The Court will have to consider other
circumstances and the other primary evidence
collected during the course of investigation, as also
the statutory presumption permissible under Section
54 of the NDPS Act."
10. Though, the appellants have relied upon the judgment passed
in Bharat Aambale (supra) but again, the same would be of no help to
them because in the above-cited appeal, the only plea as canvassed by the
appellant was violation of Section 52-A of the Act and Rule 10 of the
NDPS Rules, 2022 on the ground that Investigating Officer had allegedly
mixed all 73 packets of the seized contraband together and had, thereafter,
proceeded to draw two samples of 100-100 grams each from the mixture,
meaning thereby that in the afore-mentioned case also, the samples had
12 of 18
CRA-D No.523-DB of 2015 (O&M)
and other connected case -13-
been drawn by the Investigating Officer. However, the appeal had been
dismissed while observing as under:-
"40. Having gone through the materials on record, we
are in complete agreement with the reasoning of the High
Court. Although, from the testimony of PW-15 i.e., the
officer-in-charge of the police station where the seized
substance was forwarded it may appear that the seized
substances were simpliciter mixed together without
following the procedure of segregating similar packets of
same quality and nature into lots and thereafter taking
representative samples therefrom, yet a closer reading of
the Trial Court's judgment would reveal that the police
officers herein had duly followed the procedure
prescribed to the letter and spirit.
41. As per Clause 2.5 of the Standing Order No. 1 of 89
i.e., the relevant standing order in force at the time of
seizure, where multiple packages or packets are seized,
they first have to be subjected to an identification test by
way of a colour test to ascertain which packets are of the
same sized, weigh and contents. Thereafter, all packets
which are identical to each other in all respects will be
bunched in lots, in the case of ganja, they may be bunched
in lots of 40 packets each. Thereafter from each lot, one
sample and one in duplicate has to be drawn. The relevant
clause reads as under: -
"2.5 However, when the packages/containers seized
together are of identical size and weight, bearing
identical markings, and the contents of each
package given identical results on colour test by the
drug identification kit, conclusively indicating that
the packages are identical in all respects, the
13 of 18
CRA-D No.523-DB of 2015 (O&M)
and other connected case -14-
packages/containers may be carefully bunched in
lots of ten packages/containers except in the case of
ganja and hashish (charas), where it may be
bunched in lots of 40 such packages/containers.
For each such lot of packages/containers, one
sample (in duplicate) may be drawn."
42. As per Clause 2.8 of the Standing Order No. 1 of 89,
while drawing a sample from a particular lot,
representative samples are to be drawn, in other words,
equal quantity has to be taken from each packet in a
particular lot, that then has to be mixed to make one
composite sample. The relevant clause reads as under: -
"2.8 While drawing one sample (in duplicate) from
a particular lot, it must be ensured that
representative samples in equal quantity are taken
from each package/container of that lot and mixed
together to make a composite whole from which
the samples are drawn for that lot."
43. As aforementioned in the preceding paragraphs, the
above Standing Order came to be repealed by the
enactment of the NDPS Rules in 2022. However, as per
Rule 29 of the aforesaid NDPS Rules, notwithstanding
such repeal of the erstwhile Standing Order(s), all
actions that were done on the basis of such order or
guidelines shall be deemed to have been done under the
corresponding provision of these Rules. Furthermore, the
procedure that was delineated in Clause(s) 2.5 and 2.8 of
the said Standing Order have been reincorporated as
Rule 10 and 11 in the NDPS Rules without any
significant alteration.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
50.xxxxx
14 of 18
CRA-D No.523-DB of 2015 (O&M)
and other connected case -15-
(V) Mere non-compliance of the procedure under
Section 52A or the Standing Order(s)/Rules
thereunder will not be fatal to the trial unless there
are discrepancies in the physical evidence
rendering the prosecution's case doubtful, which
may not have been there had such compliance
been done. Courts should take a holistic and
cumulative view of the discrepancies that may exist
in the evidence adduced by the prosecution and
appreciate the same more carefully keeping in
mind the procedural lapses."
In the present case, the testimonies of PW3 DSP Baljit Singh
and PW4 DSP Gobinder Singh, coupled with the depositions made by PW1
SI Gurjant Singh and PW2 Constable Jaspreet Singh, sufficiently establish
the factum of recovery of eight (08) packets of heroin from the house of
appellants in pursuance of the disclosure statement suffered by appellant
Rajjo Bai and there is nothing on the record to doubt the truthfulness or
veracity of the testimonies of above-named prosecution witnesses. To cap
it all, in the concluding part of cross-examination of PW4, a suggestion had
been put to him that the contraband (heroin) had been concealed in the
house by the husband of Rajjo Bai, without her knowledge and the same
was denied by him (PW4). This suggestion on behalf of the appellants, by
itself, substantiates the version of prosecution regarding the recovery of
afore-mentioned contraband (heroin) from their (appellants') house.
11. Further, the verdict rendered by the Apex Court in Surepally
Srinivas (supra) is again of no avail to the appellants because in the above-
referred case, the Court had observed that the seized contraband was not
15 of 18
CRA-D No.523-DB of 2015 (O&M)
and other connected case -16-
properly sealed and though, the same had been seized on 18.06.2010 but it
had been produced in the Court for the first time on 03.07.2010 whereas in
the present case, PW4 Inspector Gobinder Singh had produced the case
property and appellant Rajjo Bai before PW1 SI/SHO Gurjant Singh on the
date of recovery itself and PW1 had produced the same, along-with specimen
seal on Form M-29, before the concerned Magistrate on 25.01.2013, i.e the
day following the date of recovery of contraband and as recorded by the
Magistrate in her order dated 25.01.2013 and mentioned in FSL Report
Exhibit PD, seals bearing impressions 'GS', 'BS' and 'GS' were found to be
duly intact and the Magistrate had also certified the Inventory in her order.
12. As regards the contention in respect of non-examination of
PW Gurmeet Singh, who was stated to be an independent witness, it is
pertinent to mention here that mere non-examination of a witness from
public, by itself, does not vitiate the trial proceedings or the judgment of
conviction and does not entitle the accused/appellant to his acquittal and
rather, in such a scenario, the Court is required to appraise and evaluate the
testimonies of official witnesses cautiously. In the instant case, as discussed
in the preceding paragraphs, testimonies of PW3 and PW4 do inspire
confidence and these corroborate/support the prosecution version on all the
material particulars, especially the disclosure statement made by appellant
Rajjo Bai and recovery of contraband in pursuance thereof and it being so,
the same can safely be relied upon to record the conviction of appellants.
13. The contention regarding delay of eleven (11) days in sending
the samples to FSL for chemical examination thereof, also does not hold any
16 of 18
CRA-D No.523-DB of 2015 (O&M)
and other connected case -17-
water because as pointed out earlier, the seals, as affixed thereon, were found
by the concerned Magistrate and FSL Authorities, to be duly intact. Further,
PW2 HC Jaspreet Singh has also made specific depositions in his affidavit
Exhibit PE to the effect that he had been handed over the sealed parcels of
the samples with the afore-said seals duly intact and he had deposited these
parcels with the Chemical Examiner on the same day and neither he nor
anyone else had tampered with the samples while these were in his custody.
The appellants have not been able to point out as to how this delay had
caused prejudice to their defence and therefore, the above-mentioned delay
does not adversely affect the case of prosecution.
14. The contention regarding registration of two (02) FIRs in
respect of the recovery of heroin, allegedly forming single consignment and
the same, hence, having caused double jeopardy to appellant Malkiat Singh,
is bereft of any force because FIR No.08 had been registered on 19.01.2013
for his having been found in possession of a bag containing 06 packets of
heroin, weighing total six (06) kgs, as kept on the motor-cycle which he was
riding at the relevant time whereas FIR No.09, relating to the present case,
had been registered on 24.01.2013, consequent upon the recovery of 08 kgs
of heroin having been affected from the house of appellants at the instance
of appellant Rajjo Bai in pursuance of her disclosure statement. Thus, it is
quite explicit that the contraband in question had been recovered on two (02)
different dates and occasions. Therefore, the plea of double jeopardy is not
available to appellant Malkiat Singh. It will also be apposite to point it out
here that Criminal Appeal No.457-DB of 2016, as preferred by appellant
17 of 18
CRA-D No.523-DB of 2015 (O&M)
and other connected case -18-
Malkiat Singh to assail his conviction in the criminal case pertaining to FIR
No.08, has also been dismissed vide the separate judgment of even date.
15. Lastly, the contention as raised on behalf of appellant Rajjo
Bai regarding her husband, appellant Malkiat Singh, having left the house
in the year 2011, i.e prior to the alleged recovery of heroin, also does not
make a dent in the case of prosecution because there is no evidence on
record to indicate/show/establish her separation from her husband or any
matrimonial discord between them.
16. As a sequel to the fore-going discussion, it follows that the
impugned judgment and order on sentence, as passed by learned trial Court
on 01.04.2014, do not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or perversity or
irregularity so as to warrant any interference by this Court. Resultantly, both
the appeals in hand, being sans any merit, are dismissed.
17. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
(LISA GILL) (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA)
JUDGE JUDGE
November 04, 2025
neetu
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether Reportable: No
18 of 18
