Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: s. 50 – Recovery of opium – Trial – Conviction – Confirmed in appeal by High Court – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: No violation of s. 50 – Chain of evidence was complete – Nonexamination of ASI, ASP and independent witnesses was not fatal in the facts of the case.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. The ASI after producing the case property before the Court, returned the case property to PW-3 with the seals intact. ASI was not in possession of seals of either of the investigating officer or of PW-3. Therfore, the question of tampering with the case property by him did not arise at all. Further he has returned the case property, after production of the same, before the Illaqa Magistrate, with the seals intact, to PW3. In that view of the matter, the Trial Court and the High Court have rightly held that non-examination of the ASI did not, in any way, affect the case of prosecution. Further, it is evident from the report of the Chemical Examiner, Ex.P-10, that the sample was received with seals intact and that the seals on the sample, tallied with the sample seals. In that view of the matter, the chain of evidence was complete. [Paras 10 and 11] [312-A, C, D-E]
2. The Trial Court as well as the High Court, has recorded a finding that the perusal of the record reveals the ASP was summoned number of times but either service was not effected or as and when he was served, he sent a request for exemption from personal attendance stating valid reasons. Further, it appears that the High Court has issued directions to the Trial Court to decide the case before 30.04.1999. As much as the ASP was not examined by 30.04.1999, a request for an extension was sought by the Special Judge, and it was adjourned to 17.05.1999. Even by 17.05.1999, the ASP could not be served as he was on leave. In view of such reasoning assigned by the Trial Court, as well as the High Court, merely because the ASP was not examined, it cannot be said that prosecution has failed to prove its case. It is clear from the evidence on record that he was summoned at the time of search and seizure and only in his presence search was conducted, as such, there is no violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. [Para 13] [313-A-C]
3. PW-1, during the course of cross-eamination, has stated that efforts were made to join independent witnesses, but none were available. Mere fact that the case of the prosecution is based on the evidence of official witnesses, does not mean that same should not be believed. [Para 14] [313-E]
4. From the evidence on record in the present case, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction recorded and the sentence imposed is in conformity with the provisions of law and evidence on record, thus no interference is called for. [Para 17] [314-D]
Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra (2006)
10 SCC 681 : [2006] 7 Suppl. SCR 156 ; Noor Aga v. State of Punjab & Anr. (2008) 16 SCC 417 : [2008]
10 SCR 379 ; Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab (2018) 17 SCC 627 : [2018] 9 SCR 1006 ; Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab (2011) 3 SCC 521 : [2011] 2 SCR 888 ; Varinder Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2019) SCC Online SC 170 ; State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Sunil & Anr. (2001) 1 SCC 652 : [2000] 5 Suppl. SCR
144 – 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.