Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act – ss.8, 21, 43, 50 – Appellant convicted u/ss.8, 21 – Affirmed by High Court – On appeal, held: As recovery of the contraband from appellant’s motorcycle was a chance recovery on a public road, the provisions of s.43 would apply – Seizure of the motor cycle from appellant is proved beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the question of ownership of vehicle is not relevant – Compliance of s.50 not attracted in the present case – Concurrent findings by courts holding the appellant guilty and directing him to undergo the prescribed sentence not perverse warranting any interference. Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1.1 On apprehending the accused, while making search of the motor cycle, 900 gm of smack was seized to which seizure and sample memos were prepared, as proved by the departmental witnesses. In the facts of the case at hand, where the search and seizure was made from the vehicle used, by way of chance recovery from public road, the provisions of Section 43 of the NDPS Act would apply. The recovery made by PW6 cannot be doubted in the facts of this case. [Para 11][707-B-C] S.K. Raju vs. State of West Bengal (2018) 9 SCC 708:[2018] 10 SCR 731; S.K. Sakkar vs. State of West Bengal (2021) 4 SCC 483:2021 AIR 2870 – relied on.
1.2 The Trial Court on appraisal of the testimony of witnesses, Constable-PW1, Constable-PW2, S.I.-PW6 and Constable-PW8, who were members of the patrolling team and the witnesses of the seizure, proved beyond reasonable doubt, when they were on patrolling, the appellant came driving the seized vehicle from opposite side. On seeing the police vehicle, he had taken back the motor cycle which he was riding. However, the police team apprehended and intercepted the accused and made the search of vehicle, in which the seized contraband smack was found beneath the seat of the vehicle. However, while making search at public place, the contraband was seized from the motor cycle driven by the accused. Thus, recovery of the contraband from the motor cycle of the appellant was a chance recovery on a public road. As per Section 43 of NDPS Act, any officer of any of the departments, specified in Section 42, is having power of seizure and arrest of the accused from a public place, or in transit of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance. The said officer may detain in search any person whom he has reason to believe that he has committed an offence punishable under the provisions of the NDPS Act, in case the possession of the narcotic drug or psychotropic substance appears to be unlawful. The seizure of the motor cycle from him is proved beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the question of ownership of vehicle is not relevant. [Para 12][707-D-H; 708-A-B]
Rizwan Khan vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2020) 9 SCC
627 : 2020 AIR 4297; State of Rajasthan vs. Sahi Ram (2019) 10 SCC 649 : [2019] 14 SCR 1117 – relied on.
2.1 It is not a case in which the appellant has proved beyond reasonable doubt that while sending the samples for forensic tests, seals were not intact or the procedure has been materially not followed by protecting the seized substance or was not stored properly. The appellant has failed to show that findings recorded by two Courts suffer from any perversity or illegality on the said issue and warrant interference. No recovery of contraband from the person of the accused has been made to which compliance of the provision of Section 50 NDPS Act has to follow mandatorily. In the present case, in the search of motor cycle at public place, the seizure of contraband was made, as revealed. Therefore, compliance of Section 50 does not attract in the present case. [Paras 13-15][708-C-D, F-H]
Than Kumar vs. State of Haryana (2020) 5 SCC 260 : [2020] 3 SCR 1090; Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja vs. State of Gujarat (2011) 1 SCC 609 : [2010] 13 SCR 255; Surinder Kumar vs. State of Punjab (2020) 2 SCC
563 : [2020] 1 SCR 307– relied on.
Union of India vs. Mohanlal and another (2016) 3 SCC 379 : [2016] 1 SCR 651 – held inapplicable.
State of Punjab vs. Baljinder Singh (2019) 10 SCC
473 : [2019] 13 SCR 520 – referred to.
2.2 Merely because independent witnesses were not examined, the conclusion could not be drawn that accused was falsely implicated. The findings concurrently recorded by the Courts holding the accused guilty for the charges and to direct him to undergo sentence as prescribed, do not suffer from any perversity, illegality, warranting interference by this Court. As the appellant has already served the sentence so awarded (10 years) and released after deposit of the amount of fine, therefore, no further directions need be issued. [Paras 16, 18 and 19] [709-B-C, G-H; 710-A-B]
Jarnail Singh vs. State of Punjab (2011) 3 SCC 521: [2011] 2 SCR 888; State of U.P. vs. Krishna Gopal (1988) 4 SCC 302 : [1988] 2 Suppl. SCR 391; Ganga Kumar Srivastava vs. State of Bihar (2005) 6 SCC 211 : 2005 AIR 3123 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. 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.