12-year jail for peddler caught with 25 drug bottles in 2018

Ludhiana: A local court has sentenced a drug peddler to twelve years of rigorous imprisonment for the conscious possession of 25 intoxicant bottles, each containing 100 ml of Codeine Phosphate salt. The Special Court Judge, Harvinder Singh, also imposed a fine of ₹1 lakh on the convict. In default of this payment, the individual must undergo an additional year of rigorous imprisonment. The case dates back to January 19, 2018, when the City Jagraon police station booked Jatinder Singh, a resident near Chungi Number 5 in Jagraon, under the NDPS Act following the recovery of Rexcoff intoxicant bottles.According to the prosecution, ASI Sukhdev Singh and a police team were stationed at T-Point Shakti Nagar, Mohalla Link Road, Jagraon, for routine checking of suspicious elements. They spotted a man carrying a polythene envelope in his right hand. Upon noticing the police, the individual attempted to turn back but was apprehended on suspicion. The man identified himself as Jatinder Singh. ASI Sukhdev Singh, acting as the Investigating Officer (IO), apprised the suspect of his identity and informed him that he suspected the envelope contained intoxicant material. A subsequent search of the polythene bag revealed 25 bottles of 100 ml intoxicants.Court Rejects Defence ContentionsFollowing the investigation and the filing of a chargesheet, the accused pleaded false implication during the trial. His defense counsel argued that the police failed to join independent witnesses despite having ample opportunity. However, the court observed that the prosecution's evidence cannot be dismissed solely because independent witnesses were absent during the search. It held that the testimony of official witnesses remains credible. Furthermore, the court noted that it was highly improbable for police to arrange such a "huge quantity" of contraband merely to frame an individual.Failure to Explain PossessionThe court ruled that the possession was fully proven and that the accused failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the recovery. It was highlighted that the accused had never filed a complaint with higher authorities regarding his alleged false implication at the time of the occurrence. "Had the accused been innocent, he would have raised a hue and cry against his false implication to higher police officers," the court held. Finding no evidence of ill-will or enmity between the police and the convict, the court concluded that the recovery was genuine and mandated a strict sentence to reflect the gravity of the offense.