IMPORTANT POINT
Procedure not causing any prejudice to accused. Not improper.

Headnote:(a) Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 - Sections 8, 15, 60, and 61 - Official vis-à-vis independent witness - It is desirable to examine at least one independent witness - Independent witness could not appear in the court, hence could not be examined - Evidence of official witnesses relied upon - In absence of any animosity between the accused and the official witnesses, their evidence can be relied upon for conviction, if reliable. (Para 9)
        (b) Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 - Section 15 - Contents of the two bags were mixed and samples drawn - Even after drawing samples the quantity remained exceeding commercial quantity - Mixing of the contents not causing any prejudice to accused - Procedure not improper. (Para 10)
       Facts of the case:
        Appellant was caught with poppy husk powder and was convicted and sentenced under NDPS.
       Finding of the Court:
        There is no infirmity in conviction and sentence.
       Result : Appeal dismissed.

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points with corresponding references:

Case Details: The case is Sumit Tomar vs. State of Punjab, decided by the Supreme Court of India on 19-10-2012, involving Criminal Appeal Nos. 1690-1691 of 2012 arising from S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos. 9415-9416 of 2011. (!)
Legal Act and Sections: The judgment pertains to the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, specifically referencing Sections 8, 15(a), 15(b), 15(c), 60, and 61. [judgement_act_referred]
Independent Witness Requirement: It is desirable for the prosecution to examine at least one independent witness; however, if official witness evidence is reliable and there is no animosity between the accused and these witnesses, conviction can be sustained even without an independent witness. (!) (!) (!) (!) [1000520800007][1000520800008]
Mixing of Contraband: Mixing the contents of two bags containing poppy husk powder before drawing samples does not cause prejudice to the accused, provided the total quantity remains above the commercial quantity threshold. (!) (!) [1000520800009]
Facts of the Case: The appellant was caught driving a car containing two plastic bags of 'bhooki' opium powder (poppy straw) at Basantpur Bus Stand, Patiala; the total seized quantity was 69.50 kgs (commercial quantity), and the driver's companion died during the investigation. [1000520800002][1000520800012]
Conviction and Sentence: The appellant was convicted under Section 15 of the NDPS Act and sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. One lakh, as the quantity involved exceeded the commercial limit. [1000520800012][1000520800007][1000520800009][1000520800010]
Outcome: The Supreme Court found no infirmity in the conviction and sentence, dismissed the appeals, and held that the procedure adopted by the prosecution was not improper. (!) [1000520800008][1000520800009][1000520800011]

JUDGMENT

P. Sathasivam, J.-Leave granted.

2. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 31.01.2011 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 2079 SB of 2009 whereby the High Court dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the appellant herein and also of the order dated 17.05.2011 passed by the High Court in Crl.M. No. 26283 of 2011 regarding correction of the date in the judgment.

3. Brief facts:

(i) According to the prosecution, on 27.06.2004, at about 5.00 p.m., a special barricading was set up by the police party at Basantpur Bus Stand, Patiala. At that time, the police party signaled to stop a silver colour Indica Car bearing No. DL-7CC-0654 which was coming from the side of Rajpura. The driver of the said car (appellant herein), accompanied with one Vikas Kumar (since deceased), who was sitting next to him, instead of stopping the car tried to run away, but the police party immediately blocked the way and managed to stop the car. On suspicion, the police checked the car and found two plastic bags containing ‘bhooki’ opium powder from the dickey of the said vehicle. The contents of both the bags were mixed and two samples of 250 gms. each were taken out. The remaining contraband weighing 69.50 kgs. was sealed in two bags and the samples were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for examination.

(ii) On the same day, i.e., 27.06.2004, a First Information Report (FIR) being No. 105 of 2004 was lodged by the police against the appellant herein and Vikas Kumar under Sections 8, 15, 60, and 61 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (in short “the NDPS Act”).

(iii) On receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner and after completion of all the formalities relating to investigation, the case was committed to the Special Court, Patiala and numbered as Sessions Case No. 118T/06.09.04/17.11.08. During the pendency of the case, Vikas Kumar died. The Special Court, Patiala, by order dated 20.08.2009, convicted the appellant herein under Section 15 of the NDPS Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for 10 years alongwith a fine of Rs. One lakh, in default, to further undergo R.I. for one year.

(iv) Being aggrieved, the appellant herein filed Criminal Appeal No. 2079 SB of 2009 before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. Learned single Judge of the High Court, by impugned order dated 31.01.2011, dismissed the said appeal. Questioning the same, the appellant has filed these appeals by way of special leave before this Court.

4. Heard Mr. V. Giri, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Ms. Noopur Singhal, learned counsel for the respondent-State.

5. Mr. V. Giri, learned senior counsel for the appellant raised the following contentions:

(i) one Kaur Singh, an independent witness, was allegedly joined by the prosecution but has not been examined. Though the prosecution claimed that the presence of Kaur Singh at the spot was natural, since he was not examined, the entire story of the prosecution has to be rejected;

(ii) in the absence of independent witness, conviction based on official witnesses, cannot be sustained; and

(iii) inasmuch as after the alleged seizure of contraband in two separate bags, there is no need for the officers to mix both the samples which was an irregularity and goes against the prosecution case.

6. On the other hand, Ms. Noopur Singhal, learned counsel for the State submitted that the person who was present at the time of seizure was Kaur Singh and, hence, he is a natural witness and to show their bona fide, the prosecution summoned him for examination, but he failed to appear. She further submitted that mixing of poppy husk found in two bags is not an irregularity, on the other hand, according to her, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and prayed for confirmation of the order of conviction and sentence.

7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2012 Supreme(SC) 771

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA P. SATHASIVAM & RANJAN GOGOI, JJ.SUMIT TOMAR - Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB - Respondent(s) Criminal Appeal Nos. 1690-1691 of 2012 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos. 9415-9416 of 2011)Decided on : 19-10-2012.

IMPORTANT POINT Procedure not causing any prejudice to accused. Not improper.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. SATHASIVAM & RANJAN GOGOI, JJ.
SUMIT TOMAR - Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB - Respondent(s)
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1690-1691 of 2012 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos. 9415-9416 of 2011)
Decided on : 19-10-2012.

IMPORTANT POINT
Procedure not causing any prejudice to accused. Not improper.