Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – ss. 8, 15 – Prosecution case that appellant was carrying 10 kgs. of opium – Appellant contended that he was falsely implicated – Trial Court convicted appellant u/ss. 8, 15 of NDPS Act – High Court upheld the conviction of the accused – On appeal, held: No independent witness from the locality was included in the investigation and all the witnesses were police officials – There was no explanation for the non-availability of any independent witness in a residential locality – Further, though the Laboratory report of the seized sample was obtained, but the identity of the sample seized from the appellant was not conclusively established – In the circumstances, mere production of a laboratory report that the sample tested was narcotics cannot be conclusive proof by itself – The sample seized and that tested have to be co-related – Thus, the conviction by the courts below unsustainable and accordingly set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. The seizure was made in the early morning at the door step of the appellant. It is difficult to believe that in a rural residential locality, the police were unable to find a single independent witness. No name of any person has been mentioned who may have declined to be a witness. The High Court, despite noticing the absence of any recovery memo prepared at the time of search and seizure under Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, opined that the deposition of the police witness to that effect was sufficient compliance. Though the Laboratory Report was obtained, but the identity of the sample stated to have been seized from the appellant was not conclusively established by the prosecution. [Para 5] [776-D-F]
2. The failure of the prosecution in the present case to relate the seized sample with that seized from the appellant makes the case no different from failure to produce the seized sample itself. In the circumstances the mere production of a laboratory report that the sample tested was narcotics cannot be conclusive proof by itself. The sample seized and that tested have to be co-related. The conviction by the Trial Court and upheld by the High Court are unsustainable and are accordingly set aside. The appellant is acquitted. [Paras 8, 10] [777-F; 778-E-F]
Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab AIR 2018 SC 3853 : 2018 SCR 1006 ; Vijay Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2013) 14 SCC 527 : [2013] 4 SCR 293 ; Ashok alias Dangra Jaiswal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2011) 5 SCC 123 : [2011] 4 SCR 253 – 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.