2023 Supreme(SC) 658
ABHAY S. OKA, RAJESH BINDAL
Simarnjit Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Puneet Jain, Adv. Mr. Harshit Khanduja, Adv. Mr. Harsh Jain, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Satija, Adv. Mr. Umang Mehta, Adv. Mr. Harsh Saxena, Adv. Ms. Sujal Gupta, Adv. Mr. B. K. Satija, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Karan Sharma, AOR Mr. Mohit Siwach, Adv. Mr. Rishabh Sharma, Adv.
Judgement Key Points
- Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appeal No. 1443 of 2023 (arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 1958 of 2023), decided on 09-05-2023 by Justices Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal.
- Appellant Simarnjit Singh convicted under Section 15 of NDPS Act by Special Judge; appeal dismissed by High Court. [1000779400011] (!) (!)
- Prosecution case: SI Hardeep Singh (PW-7) and police on patrol at canal bridge in village Balak Khurd signaled tempo from village Matran to stop; driver and two occupants apprehended; search in presence of District SP revealed eight bags of poppy husk concealed under tarpaulin; from each bag, two 250 gm samples taken (total 16 parcels), residue 29.5 kg per bag. [1000779400003]
- From each of eight bags, two samples of 250 gms drawn immediately after seizure and converted into 16 parcels, as stated by PW-7. [1000779400006]
- Drawing samples at time of seizure not in conformity with Section 52-A NDPS Act, which requires forwarding seized contraband to police officer or empowered officer for preparing inventory and applying to Magistrate for certifying inventory, photographs, and drawing representative samples in Magistrate's presence. [1000779400007] (!) (!) [1000779400008]
- Section 52-A(2) mandates inventory preparation and Magistrate application for certification of inventory, photographs, and samples drawn in presence; Section 52-A(3) requires Magistrate to allow application soon after; no provision mandates samples at seizure time, especially absent Magistrate. (!) (!)
- Act of drawing samples from all packets at seizure time creates serious doubt on whether recovered substance was contraband. [1000779400008]
- Prosecution case not free from suspicion; not established beyond reasonable doubt; impugned judgments set aside for appellant, conviction and sentence quashed; appeal allowed. [1000779400009][1000779400010]
- Only present appellant (one of three accused before High Court) appealed to Supreme Court. [1000779400002]
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. We make it clear that out of the 3 accused who were before the High Court, only the present appellant has come by way of this appeal.
3. The appellant was convicted by the Special Judge under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "the NDPS Act") for the offence punishable under Section 15 of the said Act. The appeal preferred by the present appellant has been dismissed by the impugned judgment of the High Court.
4. The case of the prosecution in brief is that SI Hardeep Singh (PW-7) along with other police officers were present at a bridge on a canal in the area of village Balak Khurd for the purposes of patrolling. When they noticed that a tempo coming from the side of village Matran, they signalled the tempo to stop. The driver and other two persons sitting in the tempo were apprehended. According to the case of the prosecution, search was conducted in the presence of the District Superintendent of Police of the tempo which led to recovery of eight bags of poppy husk which were concealed under tarpaulin. From each bag, two samples of 250 gms were taken out and made into sixte
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
