SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(SC) 658

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S.OKA, RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.
Simarnjit Singh – Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1443 of 2023 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 1958 of 2023)
Decided On : 09-05-2023

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.

IMPORTANT POINT
Recovery of contraband – Drawing of samples must be in conformity with law.

Headnote:

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 15 – Recovery of poppy husk – Conviction and sentence – Act of SI. of drawing samples from all packets at the time seizure is not in conformity with law – This creates a serious doubt about prosecution's case that substance recovered was a contraband – Case of prosecution is not free from suspicion and same has not been established beyond reasonable doubt – Impugned judgments insofar as present appellant is concerned, set aside and his conviction and sentence quashed. (Paras 9, 10 and 11)

Facts of the case:

Appellant was convicted by the Special Judge under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 for the offence punishable under Section 15 of the said Act. Appeal preferred by the present appellant has been dismissed by impugned judgment of the High Court.

Findings of Court:

Case of the prosecution is not free from suspicion and the same has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt.

Result : Appeal allowed.

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 sixteen parcels and residue of poppy husk in each bag was found to be of 29.5 kgs.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Union of India v. Mohanlal & Anr., (2016) 3 SCC 379. He submitted that the prosecution is vitiated as the work of drawing sample was done by PW-7 without taking recourse to sub-section 2 of Section 52A of the NDPS Act. He also pointed out that the examination-in-Chief of PW-7 SI Hardeep Singh which shows that the samples were drawn immediately after the seizure.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State supported the impugned judgments.

7. We have perused the evidence of PW-7 Hardeep Singh in which he has stated that from the eight bags of poppy husk, two samples of 250 gms each were drawn and converted into 16 parcels. This has been done immediately after the seizure.

8. In paragraphs 15 to 17 of the decision of this Court in Mohanlal's case (Supra), it was held thus:

    “15. It is manifest from Section 52-A(2)include (supra) that upon seizure of the contraband the same has to be forwarded either to the officerin-charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under Section 53 who shall prepare an inventory as stipulated in the said provision and make an application to the Magistrate for purposes of (a) certifying the correctness of the inventory, (b) certifying photographs of such drugs or substances taken before the Magistrate as true, and (c) to draw representative samples in the presence of the Magistrate and certifying the correctness of the list of samples so drawn.

    16. Sub-section (3) of Section 52-A requires that the Magistrate shall as soon as may be allow the application. This implies that no sooner the seizure is effected and the contraband forwarded to the officer-in-charge of the police station or the officer empowered, the officer concerned is in law duty-bound to approach the Magistrate for the purposes mentioned above including grant of permission to draw representative samples in his presence, which samples will then be enlisted and the correctness of the list of samples so drawn certified by the Magistrate. In other words, the process of drawing of samples has to be in the presence and under the supervision of the Magistrate and the entire exercise has to be certified by him to be correct.

    17. The question of drawing of samples at the time of seizure which, more often than not, takes place in the absence of the Magistrate does not in the above scheme of things arise. This is so especially when according to Section 52-A(4) of the Act, samples drawn and certified by the Magistrate in compliance with subsections (2) and (3) of Section 52-A above constitute primary evidence for the purpose of the trial. Suffice it to say that there is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top