In a significant verdict, the Court of Jaswinder Singh, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, acquitted Ravinder Singh, a warder at Central Jail Ludhiana, of charges under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, and Section 54 of the Prison Act. The court cited inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence and procedural lapses, providing the benefit of doubt to the accused.
Background of the Case
The case originated from an FIR (No. 108, dated June 30, 2021) filed at Police Station Division No. 7, Ludhiana, based on the recovery of 70 grams of charas and two packets of tobacco allegedly found in the possession of Ravinder Singh. The contraband was discovered during a security check by CRPF officials at the entrance to the Central Jail premises. Subsequently, a detailed investigation was undertaken, culminating in a final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which framed charges against Singh.
Key Legal Issues
The court deliberated on the following crucial points:
1. Was the recovery of 70 grams of charas proven beyond a reasonable doubt under Section 20 of the NDPS Act?
2. Did the possession of two packets of tobacco contravene Section 54 of the Prison Act?
3. Was the prosecution’s evidence consistent, credible, and sufficient to secure a conviction?
Arguments and Observations
Prosecution’s Case:
The Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Harpreet Singh contended that the recovery was substantiated by the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, including CRPF personnel Bikram Yadav, Aman Kumar, and Sadik Mohammad. A chemical examiner’s report (Exhibit PX) confirmed the presence of charas. The APP argued that the evidence demonstrated guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Defence’s Stand:
Represented by Advocate Iqbal Singh, the defence asserted that the recovery was dubious, citing the absence of independent witnesses and inconsistencies in the testimonies. The counsel emphasized procedural flaws, including the non-production of video evidence purportedly documenting the recovery process and delays in the investigation.
Court’s Decision
After a detailed examination of the evidence, the court concluded:
1. The absence of video footage, which could have served as the best evidence, weakened the prosecution’s case.
2. A significant delay between the alleged recovery (12:25 PM) and the investigating officer’s arrival at the scene (6:20 PM) raised concerns about procedural adherence.
3. Testimonies of key witnesses revealed inconsistencies, and the recovery process was not convincingly documented.
The court observed, “The case of prosecution has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is well settled that benefit of doubt, if any, is to be given to the accused.”
Consequently, the court acquitted Ravinder Singh of all charges, discharged his bail bonds, and directed him to furnish personal bonds of ₹20,000 in compliance with Section 437-A of the CrPC.
