SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam and M.Y. Eqbal, JJ.
Mohinder — Appellant(s)
versus
State of Haryana — Respondent(s)
Criminal Appeal No. 1564 of 2008
Decided on : 8-4-2013
(b) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 18 – Delay in sending sample to FSL – Sample reaching FSL intact in sealed condition – Delay becomes immaterial. (Para 9)
(c) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 18 – PW 5 drawing 200 gms of opium as sample – FSL reporting 250 gms including container – No serious infirmity. (Para 10)
(d) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 18(b) – Minimum sentence for possession of 3 ½ kg of opium 10 years – Sentence cannot be reduced from minimum. (Para 13)
Facts of the case:
This is a case u/s 18 of the NDPS Act.
Finding of the Court:
No interference is warranted.
JUDGMENT
P. Sathasivam,J.
1) This appeal has been filed against the final judgment and order dated 04.07.2007 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 72-SB of 1994 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant herein and confirmed the order dated 05.02.1994 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa in Sessions Case No. 11 of 1993 convicting him under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short ‘the Act’) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, in default, to further undergo RI for a period of two years.
2) Brief facts:
(a) According to the prosecution, on 23.08.1991 at about 1.30 p.m., S.I/SHO Dalbir Singh (PW-6), who was then posted at P.S. Ellenabad was present at Chowki of Mamera Khurd along with Head Constable Jagdish Rai (PW- 1) and Constables Pratap Singh and Jang Singh and one Rameshwar (PW-3). The accused-appellant came there and on seeing the police party, he sneaked into the field of Narma crop. He was apprehended on suspicion by Dalbir Singh (PW-6). At that time, the appellant was carrying a tin in his hand and on suspecting that he was carrying narcotic substance, Dalbir Singh (PW- 6) sent a V.T. Message to DSP Ram Gobind (PW-5) who reached the scene at about 2 p.m. Dalbir Singh (PW-6) presented the appellant before DSP Ram Gobind (PW-5) along with Exh. PB for conducting the search of the tin carried by him in terms of the provisions of Section 50 of the Act.
(b) On search being conducted by DSP Ram Gobind (PW-5), 3 ½ kgs of opium was found in the tin and out of the same, 200 gms. was separated from the same as sample and the residue contraband were sealed. An FIR dated 23.08.1991 came to be registered at Police Station Ellenabad by Dilbag Singh (PW-4) at 3.40 p.m. under Section 18 of the Act. The case property was deposited and duly sealed. Before reaching the Police Station, S.I. Dalbir Singh submitted a report to the DSP Ram Gobind (PW-5) under Section 57 of the Act.
(c) On 28.08.1991, the sample was handed over by Dilbag Singh to constable Khazan Singh (PW-2) for being taken to FSL, Madhuban and PW-2 delivered the said sample duly intact on 30.08.1991 at the FSL. A report dated 20.04.1992 was received from FSL, Madhuban to the effect that the sample was that of opium.
(d) On completion of the evidence and hearing, learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sirsa, by judgment and order dated 05.02.1994 in Sessions Case No. 11 of 1993 convicted the appellant and sentenced him to RI for 10 years and imposed a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, in default of payment of fine, shall further undergo RI for a period of two years.
(e) Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence awarded by the Addl. Sessions Judge, the appellant preferred Criminal Appeal No. 72 (SB) of 1994 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. By impugned judgment dated 04.07.2007, the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence as recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Hence the present appeal by way of special leave.
(3) Heard Mr. Shubhashis R. Soren, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent-State Contentions:
(4) Mr. Soren, learned counsel for the appellant, after taking us through the entire materials mainly contended that the entire investigation is defective and not in accordance with Section 50 of the Act read with Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short “the Code”). He also submitted that there was a delay of 2 days in sending the contraband for chemical analysis. He further pointed out that there is no evidence as to conscious possession of contraband. He also submitted that the appellant being a rustic villager, the imposition of sentence of 10 years is on the higher side.
(5) On the other hand, Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the State submitted that there is no viola
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.