SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
Rajwant Singh – Appellant
VERSUS
The State of Haryana – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 201 of 2019
Decided On : 09-01-2025
ORDER
This appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 15.05.2018 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRA-S-2377-SB-2004 by which the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein and thereby, affirmed the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Special Court, Kurukshetra dated 21.10.2004 holding the appellant herein guilty of the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, “the NDPS Act”) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with a fine of Rs.1 lakh.
2. The case of the prosecution may be summarised as under:- The police had information that the appellant herein and one Dara Singh were dealing in narcotics. The information was that both are drug peddlers. On 23.04.2002, a vigil was kept on the movements of the appellant herein and Dara Singh. According to the case of the prosecution, the appellant herein was travelling in a Contessa car bearing registration No.HR 01-E-0948. The car was intercepted. The car was searched and the appellant was found to be the only person in the car and he was on the wheels. From the rear seat of the car, three bags filled with poppy straw were recovered and two bags containing poppy straws were recovered from the trunk of the car. The contraband was seized at the spot. The case against the co-accused Dara Singh was that he was following the car on a motorcycle. The trial court held Dara Singh guilty of the alleged offence however, he came to be acquitted by the High Court.
3. At the end of the investigation, chargesheet was filed for the offences enumerated above. The trial court framed charge to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined in all eight witnesses. The prosecution also led documentary evidence in support of its case. The further submission of the appellant herein was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In the further statement, the appellant said that he was falsely implicated in the crime.
4. The trial court ultimately held the appellant herein guilty of the offence and sentenced him as above. The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and order of conviction. In such circumstances, the appellant is here before this Court with the present appeal.
5. We have heard Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-convict and Mr. Devendra Kumar Saini, the learned counsel appearing for the State of Haryana.
6. The only argument canvassed before us by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the conviction could be said to have stood vitiated because of non-compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act. In support of her submission, she relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Mohammed Khalid and Another vs. State of Telangana (2024) 5 SCC 393, more particularly, para (26) therein. Para (26) reads thus:-
7. We are of the view that Section 52A talks about the disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. Even for the purpose of invoking Section 52A, a foundation has to be laid by putting appropriate relevant questions in that regard to the investigating officer. Out of the blue, the appellant cannot contend that Section 52A was not complied with. We have looked into the evidence of PW-7 – Mahavir Singh, ASI, who had at the relevant point of time attached to the Kurukshetra Police Station. In his examination-in-chief, he has deposed as under:-
Mohammed Khalid and Another vs. State of Telangana (2024) 5 SCC 393 [Para 6]
The court upheld the conviction under the NDPS Act, ruling that non-compliance with Section 52A did not invalidate the evidence or conviction.
The prosecution established the appellant's conscious possession of narcotics, validating the conviction despite procedural non-compliance, as substantial evidence supported the case.
The conviction was set aside due to non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, specifically Section 52A, undermining the prosecution's case.
Possession of narcotic substances can result in conviction under NDPS despite procedural non-compliance if evidentiary strength supports prosecution's claims.
Non-compliance with the mandatory sampling and inventory procedures for seized contraband creates a rebuttable presumption of tampering. Once foundational facts of such lapses are proven, the prosecu....
Procedural non-compliance under the NDPS Act does not invalidate a conviction if substantial evidence supports the prosecution's case.
The conviction was set aside due to non-compliance with mandatory procedures under the NDPS Act, specifically Section 52A regarding the presence of a Magistrate during sampling.
The prosecution must prove possession of narcotics beyond reasonable doubt, and procedural lapses do not automatically invalidate a conviction if credible evidence supports the case.
Compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act is essential for establishing the prosecution's case, particularly the requirement for drawing samples in the presence of a Magistrate, which was ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.