2008 Supreme(SC) 1249

2008(6) Supreme 291
Supreme Court of india
Dr. Arijit Pasayat and Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, JJ.
Hardip Singh — Appellant
versus
State of Punjab — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 737 of 2007
Decided on : 20-08-08

Headnote:Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 – Section 18 – Prosecution of appellant accused and one another for being found in possession of opium – Conviction of accused persons by Trial Court – Appeal – High Court while acquitting co accused affirmed conviction of appellant – Appeal – Plea that High Court as also trial court were not justified in rejecting the defense case, as the case put up by defense was a probable Case – Defense story put up by appellant was that he had been falsely implicated by investigating officer PW 5 on account of a personal grudge that he nourished against appellant due to a vehicular accident which was ultimately compromised by a written apology, Ex. DB – Perusal of document of apology, exhibited as Ex. DB., showed that it carried signatures of various persons but signature of PW 5, investigating officer of case was not appearing in said document – Even though PW 5 was examined and cross examined at length but not a single question was put to him about execution of aforesaid document of apology – No suggestion was given to him that said document was executed in his presence and that he was also a consenting party to said document of apology – Hence held that trial court as also the High Court were justified in raising doubt about the genuineness of the said defense case – Said document was held to be a doubtful document as genuineness of same could not be proved by appellant since he had failed to bring it to notice of PW 5, during his cross examination, fact that same was executed in his presence and with his consent – Defense case which was found to be a got up story was sought to be made out only during the trial by which time investigation was complete – Appeal having no merit dismissed (Paras 9 and 10)

       Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 – Section 18 – Conviction of appellant accused for being found in possession of opium – Challenge thereagainst on plea of delay in sending samples of opium to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) – However said plea was held to be of no consequence for fact that recovery of said sample from possession of appellant stood proved and established by cogent and reliable evidence led in the trial – Categorical statement of PW 5 about recovery of opium from possession of appellant – Said recovery was effected in presence of a senior police officer, who also put his seal on said parcels of opium – PW 1Station House Officer, Inspector received the said samples of opium along with case material, being produced before him by PW 5- PW 1 kept the entire case property with him till it was deposited in office of Chemical Examiner – Even till the date the parcels of sample were received by Chemical Examiner, seal put on said parcels was intact – That itself proved and established that there was no tampering with the aforesaid seal in the sample at any stage and the sample received by analyst for chemical examination contained same opium which was recovered from possession of the appellant – In that view of matter, delay of about 40 days in sending samples not caused any prejudice to appellant. (Para 12)

       Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 – Section 55 – Appeal against conviction on non compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 55 – Failure on part of appellant to show that any prejudice was caused to him for not putting the seal in sample by officer-in-charge of police station-Categorical statement of PW 5 that on reaching the Police Station, Ajnala, he handed over case property with seals intact to the officer-in-charge of the said police station, who was examined in the trial as PW 1-Deposition of PW 1 that PW 5 produced before him case property and sample on 20.8.1997 with seals intact – PW1 also stated that so long said articles remained in his custody and possession, the same were not tampered with – In the light of nature of evidence on record, no prejudice caused to appellant on non compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 55. (Para 13)

       Facts of the Case :

       Present appeal has been filed challenging order of conviction of appellant u\s 18 of NDPS ACT.

       Findings of the Court :

       Plea of appellant that High Court as also trial court were not justified in rejecting the defense case, as the case put up by defense was a probable Case. Defense story put up by appellant was that he had been falsely implicated by investigating officer PW 5 on account of a personal grudge that he nourished against appellant due to a vehicular accident which was ultimately compromised by a written apology, Ex. DB. Perusal of document of apology, exhibited as Ex. DB., showed that it carried signatures of various persons but signature of PW 5, investigating officer of case was not appearing in said document. Even though PW 5 was examined and cross examined at length but not a single question was put to him about execution of aforesaid document of apology. No suggestion was given to him that said document was executed in his presence and that he was also a consenting party to said document of apology. Hence held that trial court as also the High Court were justified in raising doubt about the genuineness of the said defense case. Defense case which was found to be a got up story was sought to be made out only during the trial by which time investigation was complete.

       Result : Appeal dismissed.