Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(SC) 1082

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UDAY UMESH LALIT, VINEET SARAN, JJ.
State Of Rajasthan – Appellant
Versus
Sahi Ram – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1497 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.8428 of 2016)
Decided on : 27-09-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Milind Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent(s):Saurabh Ajay Gupta, Nishant Bishnoi, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINT
Non-production of the contraband material before the Court, by itself is not sufficient to grant benefit of acquittal.

Headnote:
(a) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 8 r/w 15 - Non-production of the contraband material before the Court, by itself - Not sufficient to grant benefit of acquittal. (Para 15)
(b) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 8 r/w 15 - Seizure of material proved on record - No need to place the contraband material before court - Trial court rightly convicted the respondent - Respondent sentenced to minimum period of 10 years. (Para 17, 18)
Facts of the case:
The respondent was convicted u/s 8 read with 15 of the NDPS Act. By a separate order of even date, the respondent was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for fifteen years and to pay fine of Rs.1,50,000/-; in default whereof he was directed to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year.
The High Court allowed the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
Trial court rightly convicted the respondent.
Result: Appeals allowed.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Here are the key points based on the provided legal document:

Non-production of the contraband material before the court by itself is not sufficient to warrant acquittal of the accused (!) (!) .
The seizure of the contraband, along with proper sampling, sealing, and documentation, can establish the case against the accused without the need to produce the entire bulk of the contraband in court (!) (!) .
The prosecution’s failure to produce the entire contraband material or to explain its whereabouts does not automatically lead to acquittal if the seizure and sampling procedures are properly followed and documented (!) .
The primary evidence of seizure, including signatures on the seizure memo and the integrity of the samples, is crucial. If these are established, the absence of the bulk contraband in court does not necessarily negate the case (!) (!) .
The connection between the seized samples and the forensic report is essential. Lack of such connection or non-production of samples may weaken the case and could justify an acquittal (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The overall integrity of the seizure process, including proper sealing, sampling, and documentation, is fundamental to establishing the case beyond reasonable doubt (!) (!) .
The court may restore a conviction if it finds that the seizure was properly proved and that the non-production of the entire contraband was not a fatal flaw, especially when the samples and signatures are properly documented (!) (!) .
The appropriate sentence for a conviction under the relevant narcotics law can be a minimum of 10 years of rigorous imprisonment, which may be adjusted based on the facts of the case (!) (!) .
The court can order the accused to surrender within a specified period and ensure compliance with the sentence and other legal requirements (!) .

Please let me know if you need any further analysis or specific legal advice based on this document.

JUDGMENT :

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal challenges the final order dated 07.04.2016 passed by the High Court [The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur] in S.B. Criminal Appeal No.774 of 2015.

3. On receiving source information on 20.06.2006 that in a white coloured Tavera vehicle bearing registration No.RJ27-TC-0323 three persons were coming from Madhya Pradesh along with contraband material namely poppy straw and were proceeding towards Jodhpur, the information was reduced to writing and a copy was immediately forwarded to the superior officers in terms of requirements of Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “the NDPS Act”).

4. A team was thereafter constituted which reached the Railway crossing near petrol pump Nimbahera. Two private persons named Kishan Lal and Chaman Lal were asked to associate as Panchas. At 9.40 AM, the vehicle was seen coming from Neemuch and was stopped. The vehicle was being driven by the respondent while the other two occupants were identified as Sohan and Kanhaiya Lal. After following mandatory requirements under the provisions of the NDPS Act, the vehicle was searched, during which seven bags of poppy straw, the gross weight being 223 kgs were found behind the driver’s seat. From every bag two samples of 500 grams were taken and two such samples were sealed. Remaining quantity of 2500 grams was put in a separate pouch. The bags weighing about 223 kgs were also sealed. Punchnama to that effect was recorded which bore the signatures of the respondent and other persons.

5. After completing investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the respondent and against said Sohan and Kanhaiya Lal for the offence punishable under Section 8 read with 15 of the NDPS Act while the investigation was kept pending against one Shyam Sunder, his wife Vimla, the owners of the vehicle and one Pappu Raja. By Order dated 25.05.2015, said Sohan and Kanhaiya Lal were marked as absconding accused in the trial.

6. The prosecution examined eighteen witnesses in support of its case. PW15, Surender Singh, from Police Station Nimbahera had entered the information in Rojnamcha and had intimated the superior officials. As regards the recovery of the contraband material he stated:-

“…… Behind the driver’s seat there were white plastic bags which were tied with strings, which were opened with the help of the police team and the witnesses, and smelled, and then everybody told it to be poppy husk. They were asked if they had any valid license for this poppy husk and they had told that they do not have any license. Their above act of all the three people was found to be punishable offence under section 8/15 NDPS Act due to which the bags were taken out of the vehicle, all the bags were weighed, then, in the 7 bags 223 kg poppy husk was found. 500 gm poppy husk was taken out from every bag and was weighed together and it came out to be 3500 gm. Out of this two samples of 500 gm each were put in plastic packets and were then put in white cloth bags and seal stamped. The sample was marked A and the control sample was marked B. the remaining 2500 gm sample was seal stamped and given mark C.”
“…..All the three accused Sahi Ram, Sohan, Kanhaiya Lal were given notices under section 52 and were arrested. I recognize all the three accused, who are today not present in the court. The notice given to witness Kishan is Exibit P-1, which bears my signatures from E to F, and the signatures of Kishan are from C to D, the notice given to Chaman is Exibit P-17, which bears my signatures from E to F, and the signatures of Chaman are from C to D. the notice given to accused Sahi Ram under section 50 is Exibit P-2, the notice given to accused Sohan under section 50 is Exibit P-3, the notice given to accused Kanhaiya Lal under section 50 is Exibit P-4, which bears my signatures from E to F, and the signatures of accused are from G to H. the memo of seizure of poppy hu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 Supreme(SC) 1082

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAUDAY UMESH LALIT, VINEET SARAN, JJ.State Of Rajasthan – AppellantVersusSahi Ram – RespondentCriminal Appeal No.1497 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.8428 of 2016)Decided on : 27-09-2019

IMPORTANT POINTNon-production of the contraband material before the Court, by itself is not sufficient to grant benefit of acquittal.

Cases Referred (5)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UDAY UMESH LALIT, VINEET SARAN, JJ.
State Of Rajasthan – Appellant
Versus
Sahi Ram – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1497 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.8428 of 2016)
Decided on : 27-09-2019

IMPORTANT POINT
Non-production of the contraband material before the Court, by itself is not sufficient to grant benefit of acquittal.