Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – ss.8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) – Punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plant and cannabis – Search and seizure operation leading to recovery of contraband-Ganja weighing 39 kgs from the hut of the appellant-accused no. 1 and accused no.2 – On disclosure by two accused, complicity of accused no.3 came to light and on accused no.3’s arrest, complicity of accused no.4 came to light – Trial court relied on the video recording of the raid to corroborate the substantive evidence led during trial and convicted accused nos.1 and 2 and acquitted the other two accused – High Court set aside the conviction and sentence, however, remanded the matter for a re-trial since the video-recording was not converted into admissible evidence; the chemical examiner/analyst not produced as a witness; non-production of remnant samples; and non-production of representative samples – Sustainability: Held: Order by the High Court ordering re-trial not sustainable – As regards the admissibility of video recording-Compact Disc, the High Court opined that the video would become relevant only if it is played during deposition of each witness so that the witness could explain its contents in his own words resulting in a transcript of the video, is a strange and unacceptable reasoning since the CD is an electronic record and once the requirement of s.65B is fulfilled it becomes an admissible piece of evidence, and the video recorded therein is akin to contents of a document which can be seen and heard to enable the court to draw appropriate inferences – On facts, search and seizure operation was sought to be proved by oral evidence of witnesses, the video, was perhaps to corroborate the oral testimony – Video was played in court in the presence of all accused as well as both sides counsels and the presiding officer, upon seeing the video, could spot and confirm the presence of witnesses as well as the accused at the time of search and seizure, in such circumstances, re-trial is not required only to explain the video – As regards the non-production of the chemical examiner as a witness, no such requirement of law that Chemical Examiner would have to be called in each NDPS case to prove the report when it is otherwise admissible u/s.293(1) CrPC – Moreover, from the judgment of the trial court it appears that the Chemical Examiner’s report was admitted in evidence – Nothing in High Court’s judgment that any objection was raised in respect of exhibiting the Chemical Examiner’s report – As regards, non-production of remnant samples and representative samples, prima facie, there existed material to indicate that the seized contraband was sent in a sealed condition for preparation of inventory – Thereafter, inventory was prepared, samples were drawn and sealed; and the samples were sent to FSL in a sealed condition, which found the seal intact – High Court, however, observed that the representative sample was not opened before the Court at the time of recording of statement of the concerned witness – This was not a ground to direct for a re-trial when the appellate court has power to take additional evidence u/s.391 CrPC – Direction for restoration of appeals before the High Court for a fresh decision – Impugned order of the High Court set aside. [Paras 19, 21, 31, 33-36]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.