REPORTABLE

              IN THE SUPREME COURT OF  INDIA           CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION   

             CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  190  OF 2005

STATE OF PUNJAB ..  APPELLANT

vs.

MALKIAT SINGH ..  RESPONDENT

J U D  G M E N T

Dr.  ARIJIT  PASAYAT,J.

Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a  Division Bench  of  

Punjab and Haryana High court  directing  acquittal  of  the  respondent  who  

faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 15 of  

the Narcotic Drugs and Psycotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short the `NDPS  

Act').   The  respondent  was  sentenced  to  undergo  twelve  years  rigorous  

imprisonment and to pay fine of rupees one lakh with default stipulation by

learned Sessions Judge, Ludhiana.   

In appeal the High Court found that there were several factors which  

justified the acquittal of the respondent.  The first was that the recovery  was  

from a room near a tube well   belonging  to one Pritam Singh.  Though the  

prosecution claimed that the room was under the control of the respondent,  

no evidence was led in that regard.  The stand of the prosecution  

-2-

was that the room in question was leased out to the present respondent for  

the purpose of storing the contraband articles.  That lease deed if any was

even not brought on record.  If the narcotics have been recovered from room  

belonging to Pritam Singh's he was not prosecuted.  There was nothing to  

show that the accused was  having possession over the room in question.  

Question in that regard was put to him.  With theses conclusions the High  

Court directed acquittal.

The High Court was of the view that in case of such serious nature,  

the investigating agency was not very serious in conducting the investigation.  

It noted with concern that drug peddlers who are corroding the health of the  

nation are allowed to go scot free because of the ineffective investigation and  

for not collecting evidence to secure their conviction.   

Learned counsel for the appellant State submitted that the presence  

of  the  respondent  near  the  spot  of  occurrence  had  been established  and  

therefore it can be safely said that he was connected with the storage of the  

contraband articles.   In  response,  the  learned  counsel  for  the  respondent  

submitted

-3-

that even no question was put to the accused in his examination under ec.313  

of the Code whether he was in possession or control of the room from where  

the contraband articles were recovered.  

We  find  that  the  High  court  has  noted  with  concern  the  shoddy  

investigation  which  was  done.  There  was  no  reason  indicated  as  to  why  

Pritam Singh was not examined and why  during investigation  copy of the  

lease deed, showing the room to have been leased out to the respondent-

accused,  was  obtained  from Pritam  Singh,  if  that  was  there.  There  is  no  

reason  as  to  why the same was  not  brought  on record.   Additionally,  no

evidence was adduced to show the possession of the room by respondent  

who was  admittedly not the owner  of  the room.   In  addition,  as  is  rightly  

contended by learned counsel for the respondent, no question regarding the  

possession of the room in question was put which  added to the vulnerability  

to the prosecution version.

 Looking  from any angle, the Judgment of the High Court does not  

suffer from any infirmity to warrant interferene.

Above being the position, the appeal fails and is dismissed.

                          ................ .J.               (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)      

     ...................J.                                         (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY) New Delhi, April 21, 2009.