Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – ss.20(b)(ii)(B), 20(b)(ii)(C), 42, 50, 55 – Appellant-accused along with others was found with contraband articles in the vehicle – Convicted u/s.20(b)(ii)(B) – Held: No error committed by both the courts below in convicting the accused relying upon the deposition of the police officials which is reliable and trustworthy – Compliance of the procedure prescribed u/ss.42, 55 has also been established and proved – It was established and proved that the samples which were seized and sealed from the appellant were sent to FSL – Further, to prove the case under NDPS Act, ownership of the vehicle is not required to be established and proved – It is enough to establish and prove that the contraband articles were found from the accused from the vehicle purchased by the accused – Prosecution successful in proving the case against the appellant – Evidence – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.313.
Evidence – Of police officials/police witnesses – Conviction based thereon – Non-examination of independent witnesses – Effect of – Discussed – Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The prosecution has been successful in proving the case against the accused by examining the witnesses PW3, PW4, PW5, PW7 and PW8. All the said witnesses are police officials and two independent witnesses who were panchnama witnesses had turned hostile. However, all the aforesaid police witnesses are found to be reliable and trustworthy. All of them were thoroughly cross-examined by the defence. There is no allegation of any enmity between the police witnesses and the accused. No such defence has been taken in the statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. There is no law that the evidence of police officials, unless supported by independent evidence, is to be discarded and/or unworthy of acceptance. Examination of independent witnesses is not an indispensable requirement and such non-examination is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution case. No error was committed by both the courts below in convicting the accused relying upon the deposition of the police officials. [Para 8.2][554-C-D]
Surinder Kumar v. State of Punjab (2020) 2 SCC 563 – relied on.
1.2 Compliance of the procedure prescribed under Section
42 and 55 of the NDPS Act has been established and proved. [Paras 9, 9.1][555-E-F]
1.3 To prove the case under the NDPS Act, the ownership of the vehicle is not required to be established and proved. It is enough to establish and prove that the contraband articles were found from the accused from the vehicle purchased by the accused. Ownership of the vehicle is immaterial. What is required to be established and proved is the recovery of the contraband articles and the commission of an offence under the NDPS Act. Merely because the ownership of the vehicle is not established and proved and/or the vehicle is not recovered subsequently, trial is not vitiated, while the prosecution has been successful in proving and establishing the recovery of the contraband articles from the accused on the spot. [Para 11][556-E-F] Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab (2018) 17 SCC 627 : [2018] 9 SCR 1006; P.P. Fathima v. State of Kerala (2003) 8 SCC 726; Baldev Singh v. State of Haryana (2015) 17 SCC 554 : [2015] 12 SCR 969; State of Himachal Pradesh v. Pradeep Kumar (2018) 13 SCC
808 : [2018] 2 SCR 656; Mukesh Singh v. State (Narcotic Branch) Decision of Supreme Court dated 31.08.2020 in SLP (Criminal) Diary No. 39528/2018 – referred to.
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.