Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: s.8 r/w s.15 – Conviction under – By Special Court – In appeal, High Court acquitted the accused holding that failure to exhibit the entire contraband material before the Court was fatal and hence evidence regarding alleged seizure was liable to be discarded – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: In the facts of the present case, seizure of the contraband was conclusively proved – If the seizure of the material is otherwise proved on record and is not even doubted or disputed, entire contraband need not be placed before the Court – High Court erred in extending benefit of acquittal to the accused – Conviction order restored.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. In the present matter, the evidence of PW15 shows that from and out of 7 bags of poppy husk, samples weighing about 500 grams were taken out of each bag. Out of these 3500 grams thus taken out, two samples of 500 grams were independently sealed while rest 2500 grams were also sealed in a separate pouch. These samples were marked A, B and C respectively. The bags were also independently sealed and taken in custody and Exbt-5 seizure memo which recorded all these facts was also signed by the accused. At no stage in cross-examination, even a suggestion was put to the witness that either the signatures of the accused were taken by fraud, coercion or mis-representation or that the signatures were not of the accused or that they did not understand the purport of the seizure memo. It would therefore be difficult to even suggest that the seizure of contraband weighing 223 kgs was not proved by the prosecution. Rather this fact stood conclusively proven. [Para 16] [1128-G-H; 1129-A-B]
2. If the seizure of the material is otherwise proved on record and is not even doubted or disputed, the entire contraband material need not be placed before this Court. If the seizure is otherwise not in doubt, there is no requirement that the entire material ought to be produced before the Court. At times, the material could be so bulky, for instance as in the present matter when those 7 bags weighed 223 kgs that it may not be possible and feasible to produce the entire bulk before the Court. If the seizure is otherwise proved, what is required to be proved is the fact that the samples taken from and out of the contraband material were kept intact, that when the samples were submitted for forensic examination the seals were intact, that the report of the forensic experts shows the potency, nature and quality of the contraband material and that based on such material, the essential ingredients constituting an offence are made out. [Para 17] [1129-C-D]
Noor Aga v. State of Punjab & Another (2008) 16 SCC 417: [2008] 10 SCR 379; Jitendra & Another v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2004) 10 SCC 562 : [2003] 3 Suppl. SCR 918; Ashok alias Dangra Jaiswal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2011) 5 SCC 123 : [2011] 4 SCR 253; Vijay Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2013) 14 SCC 527 : [2013] 4 SCR 293; Vijay Pandey v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 2019 SC 3569 – 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.