1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1232  OF 2004

  RAJBIR SINGH AND ANR. ... APPELLANT(S)

:VERSUS:

  STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. ... RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

1. This  appeal  is  directed  against  the  judgment  and  order  dated  21.4.2004  

passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the criminal miscellaneous  

petition filed by the two appellants herein under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., praying  

for quashing the order dated 21.9.2003 whereby the appellants were convicted under  

Section 58 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('NDPS Act').  

2. The case in hand has a chequerred history.  Appellant No.1 herein was Sub  

Inspector Rajbir Singh of P.S. Sadar, Dabwali and appellant No.2 - Satbir Singh, was  

the then Tehsildar of Dabwali, District Sirsa, Haryana. They were both prosecution  

witnesses in connection with a case registered as FIR No.149 dated 7.8.2002 under  

Section 17 & 18 of  the  NDPS Act  against  one  Hanuman son of  Net  Ram,  on the  

ground that the said Hanuman was in possession of opium in contravention of the  

aforesaid provisions.

2

3. Appellant  No.1  Rajbir  Singh  investigated  the  aforesaid  case  and  filed  a  

charge-sheet against said Hanuman, on the basis of which the trial started. After the  

trial was concluded, the learned Trial Court not only found that the accused was not  

guilty of the charge and consequently acquitted him, but also found that the aforesaid  

initiation and registration of the case against Hanuman was the result and outcome of  

a conspiracy hatched by S.I. Rajbir Singh and Satbir Singh (PW-2), who was the then  

Tehsildar of Dabwali, District Sirsa, for putting pressure upon Satpal son of accused  

Hanuman, to abandon his rights over 75 Kanals of land under his tenancy. The Trial  

Court held that due to the aforesaid conspiracy for putting pressure upon Satpal, it  

was  decided  by  the  Investigating  Officer  Rajbir  Singh  in  collusion  with  the  then  

Tehsildar Satbir Singh, to implicate Hanuman, the father of Satpal in a false case.  

The  Trial  Court  has  referred  to  the  aforesaid  conspiracy  in  its  findings  in  the  

following manner:

“It is evident from the case discussion that a conspiracy was hatched  

by SI Rajbir Singh, then SHO, Police Station Sadar Dabwali and PW  Satbir Singh, then Tehsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate,  Dabwali for  

putting pressure upon Shri Satpal son of accused Hanuman Bishnoi to  abandon his rights over 75 Kanals of and under his tenancy. It was  

decided to implicate his father in a totally false case.  They perhaps  wanted independent  corroboration to the  official  version and hence  

began the search for the convenient man. The choice naturally fell on  PW Duli  Chand, the old warhorse who had participated in many a  

legal battle in the Courts of law and had come to believe by then that  he could walk into the Court-room, depose the tutored version and  

then walk out without remorse, he decided as usual to oblige the SHO  of his  area and so was implicated a poor, hapless and innocent man in  

a case under the NDPS Act. A huge quantity of 5 kgs. of opium was  planted upon him so that the Court would not ever grant him bail and  

that the  sword of minimum imprisonment of Teh Years and a huge

3

fine of Rs. One Lac would continue hanging over his head for many  

many  years.   But  mysterious  are  the   ways  of  nature.  The  trial  concluded in less  than six  months time and overwhelming evidence  

appeared on record not only to prove the innocence of a hapless victim  of  brute  conspiracy  but  also  the  pre-arranged  plan  crafted  by  SI  

Rajbir Singh, SHO, Police Station Sadar, Dabwali and Satbir Singh,  Tehsildar-cum-Executive Magistate, Dabwali, whose primary duty is  

to check injustice being done to the people. It is a fit case to attract the  provisions  of  Section  58  of  the  Narcotic  Drugs  and  Psychotropic  

Substances Act, 1985. The players in the conspiracy must have the feel  of the noose which they had so skillfully created and they must taste  

the portion which they had so thoughtfully prepared for innocent Shri  Hanuman Bishnoi. SI Rajbir Singh, then SHO, Police Station Sadar,  

Dabwali  and  Satbir  Singh,  Tehsildar-cum-Executive  Magistrate,  Dabwali  are  hereby  convicted  for  the  commission  of  an  offence  

punishable  under  Section  58(1)(c)  of  the  Narcotic  Drugs  and  Psychotropic  Substances  Act,  1985.  They  shall  be  heard  on  the  

quantum  of  sentence  as  and  when  they  are  produced  before  this  Court.”

4. The appellants were aggrieved by the aforesaid findings and order of the  

Trial  Court  as  they  were  straightway  convicted  for  commission  of  an  offence  

punishable under Section 58(1)(c) of the NDPS Act without going through the process  

and procedure of a trial.  It is the stand of the  appellants that the Trial Court did not  

have  the  power  and  jurisdiction  to  pass  an  order  of  conviction  for  the  alleged  

commission of offence under Section 58(1)(c) of the NDPS Act, without going through  

the process of trial and without giving them due opportunity of hearing and defending  

themselves.  

5. The appellants, however, did not accept the notice which was issued by the

4

Trial Court along with the non-bailable warrants and instead, they approached the  

High Court by filing a criminal misc. petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It was  

submitted before the High Court by the appellants that since a non-bailable warrant  

was issued by the Trial Court, they were not in a position to appear before the Trial  

Court and contest the matter only relating to sentencing.  The High Court considered  

the pleas  raised by the appellants  before  it  and on consideration of  the facts  and  

circumstances of the case, dismissed the petition after recording certain observations  

which are extracted below:

“Before proceedings further it is important to note that the  

conduct  of  the  defence  of  this  petition  by  the  State  is  not  what  is  expected of an independent and fair minded police officer. The Trial  

Court  had  returned  a  specific  finding  that  S.I.  Rajbir  Singh  and  Tehsildar Satbir Singh were guilty of offence under Section 58(1)(c) of  

the Act and called upon them to be heard on the quantum of sentence.  If  the  two  petitioners  were  dissatisfied  or  wished  to  challenge  this  

finding they could take  recourse of either appearing before the Court  and seeking a hearing or filing an appeal or revision petition to have  

the finding reversed or set aside. The petitioners opted to take a short  cut by challenging the warrants instead of challenging the order of the  

trial  Judge.  As  long  as  the  findings  stand  the  petitioners  have  no  option but to appear before the Court and submit to its jurisdiction. If  

the petitioner shave anything to submit in their defence they are at  liberty to do so before the Court concerned. The petitioners have not  

challenged  the  findings  against  them. Therefore,  this  Court  cannot  interfere suo moto.

The petitioners must submit to the trial court and raise  

whatever plea they are advised to raise in their defence. Criminal  Misc. No. 4895 M of 2003 is disposed of with the above direction.”    

6. The  aforesaid  observations  and  the  order  dismissing  the  criminal  misc.

5

petition filed by the appellants under  Section 482 Cr.P.C., are under challenge in this  

appeal, on which we have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

7. Mr.  Mahabir  Singh,  learned  senior  counsel  appearing  on  behalf  of  the  

appellants has submitted before us that the Trial Court was not justified in convicting  

the appellants in a case which was instituted and registered against a different accused  

person  in  which  the  trial  took  place  for  consideration  of  only  the  said  allegation  

against the accused persons therein. It is further submitted that in the same trial and  

at the conclusion of the same, no order of conviction could have been passed against  

the Investigating Officer, namely, SI Rajbir Singh and against one of the prosecution  

witnesses, namely, Satbir Singh, without framing the charges against them under the  

relevant law and without going through the due process of trial and without giving an  

opportunity to the appellants to raise their defence. It is his further submission that  

the appellants  could have validly  raised the  issue of  sanction and also could have  

brought to the notice of the Trial Court the provisions of Section 69 of the NDPS Act  

which  gives  a  protection  to  the  Investigating  Authority  to  the  effect  that  the  

investigation and prosecution carried out under the Act should be deemed to be bona  

fide.   The  learned  senior  counsel  submits  that  these  aspects  are  necessarily  valid  

defences and could have been effectively raised by the appellants provided a fair trial  

was conducted against them.          

8. We have considered the aforesaid submissions of     Mr. Mahabir Singh. It is,  

however,  disclosed  from  the  records  that  the  appellants  have  not  challenged  the  

findings  recorded  by  the  Trial  Court  even  before  the  High  Court,  nor  have  they  

challenged the order of conviction as such before the High Court.  The appellants

6

have been directed by the High Court to raise all the issues and also challenge the  

findings against them before the Trial Court.   

9. While making such observations, we feel that the High Court  has given a  

reasonable  opportunity  to  the  appellants  to  raise  all  those  issues  which  would be  

available to them before the Trial Court when they appear before it pursuant to the  

notice issued to them.  We also feel that the appellants should and could be allowed to  

raise all available pleas, both factual as also legal issues, before the Trial Court when  

they appear before the Trial Court in terms of the order passed by the High Court.  

All those issues which are raised by the appellants should be considered by the Trial  

Court fairly, reasonably and in accordance with law. We are of the opinion that High  

Court has committed no error in passing the impugned order. We are also unable to  

consider the legality of the said order as it was not challenged either before the High  

Court or before us specifically.  

10. The appellants are, therefore, granted two weeks' time to appear before the  

Trial Court and, if necessary, to file  an application raising all pleas in terms of the  

order of the High Court in that regard as stated hereinbefore.  Such pleas shall be  

considered by the Trial Court and the application shall be disposed of in accordance  

with law.   

11. If the appellants are still aggrieved, they will be at liberty to take recourse to  

further  appropriate  remedy  in  accordance  with  law  and  as  may  be  available,  

including the prayer for granting them interim bail.   

12. Any  observation  made  herein  shall  not  be  construed  as  expressing  any

7

opinion or views by this Court on merit.

13. The appeal is disposed of with the aforementioned observation and direction.

...........................J (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

...........................J   (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)    NEW DELHI, MAY 26, 2009.