Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(P&H) 172

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

Darshan Singh & another - Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRA-S-756-SB-2001 (O&M)
Decided on : 29-04-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Ms. G.K. Mann, Senior Advocate with Mr. Gursewak Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Sukhdev Singh, AAG, Punjab.

In narcotics offenses, prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, with stringent proof requirements, particularly concerning evidence collection and witness testimony.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 18 - Conviction for possession of opium - Mandatory minimum sentence could not be reduced based on procedural issues of evidence collection - Suspicion must be warranted by credible evidence and not arbitrary assertions. (Paras 2, 17, 24)

(B) Burden of Proof - In narcotics cases, the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt with stringent scrutiny due to the serious nature of offenses under the NDPS Act. (Paras 21, 22)

Facts of the case:
The appellants, convicted for possession of opium exceeding personal use limits, challenged their sentence following procedural discrepancies in evidence collection including lack of independent witnesses and proper linkage of evidence. (Paras 4, 17)

Findings of Court:
The conviction was deemed unsustainable due to lack of supporting evidence and improvements in prosecution's version, leading to reasonable doubt regarding possession. (Paras 24, 25)

Issues: Whether the evidence gathered during the trial proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; whether the conviction under Section 18 of NDPS was justified given the absence of independent witnesses. (Paras 17, 20)

Ratio Decidendi: The Court noted that in cases involving serious offenses such as under the NDPS Act, prosecutorial evidence must meet a higher threshold of scrutiny, and the absence of independent witnesses raised doubts sufficient to acquit the accused. (Paras 21, 24)

Result: Appeal allowed; judgment of conviction and sentence set aside with acquittal of both appellants.

Table of Content
1. judgment history and appeals (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. issues concerning evidence in possession (Para 4 , 5)
3. details of police investigation and recovery (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. analysis of defence evidence and credibility (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
5. questions of possession and doubts in prosecution case (Para 17 , 18)
6. supreme court cases on evidence standards (Para 19 , 20)
7. stricter standards of proof in drug cases (Para 21 , 22 , 23)
8. final ruling and acquittal (Para 24 , 25)

JUDGMENT :

ANOOP CHITKARA J.

FIR No.	Dated	Police Station	Sections
101	4.6.1999	Dera-Bassi	18 NDPC ACT

Case No.	SC No.50T/26.8.1999 Date of Decision: 14.06.2001
Names of accused/ convicts/ appellants	1. Darshan Singh, 2. Gursewak Singh
Conviction under	Section 18 of the NDPS Act
Sentence imposed	R.I. for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each

1. Appellants-accused Darshan Singh (A-1) and Gursewak Singh (A-2), who were convicted and sentenced by the trial court for possessing opium exceeding the limit established for personal use, filed the present appeal in this court in 2001.

2. Vide order dated 13.07.2001, a coordinate Bench of this Court had admitted the appeal, and vide order dated 11.04.2002, another coordinate Bench had suspended the sentence of the appellants-accused and released them on bail. Subsequently, vide order dated 22.11.2011, another coordinate Bench of this Court upheld the conviction; however, the Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by them, i.e., 2 years and 9 months, and the fine was also reduced to Rs. 10,000/- each.

3. The State challenged the judgment dated November 22, 2011, before the Honorable Supreme Court. In its judgment dated June 8, 2023, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of this Court and remanded the matter back to this Court. Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the sentence awarded by the trial Court was a minimum mandatory sentence, which could not have been further reduced. Thus, the matter was remanded back to this Court, and the appeal was ordered to be decided afresh on its merits. The appellants-accused were directed to surrender within four weeks and to apply for bail before this Court again. Subsequently, this Court, in an order dated January 16, 2025, suspended the sentence of the appellants after a total custody of 3 years, 3 months, and 28 days.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the link evidence is missing in the present case. The recovery of the alleged contraband was made on 4.6.1999, whereas Form No.29 was not prepared at the spot, and the same was filled only on 7.6.1999. Further, the seal was not handed over to any independent witness, and no independent witness was examined.

5. On the other hand, the State’s counsel supports the conviction and argues that there is clinching evidence against the convicts; the statements of police officials are legally admissible, and their testimony cannot be thrown away, because there is no rule of law that police officials cannot be competent to be witnesses.

6. On 4.6.1999, SI Jassa Singh (PW-2), who was posted as SHO, Police Station Dera Bassi, had erected a barricade in Village Bhudha. He was accompanied by PW-4 ASI Tarsem Lal and five more police officials on a private Gypsy. At about 6-30 p.m., they noticed two persons coming on a scooter. They got suspicious and made the scooter stop, and on inquiry, the said persons disclosed their names as Darshan Singh (A-1) and Gursewak Singh (A-2). Gursewak Singh was driving the scooter, and Darshan Singh was the pillion rider. The investigator got suspicious about their carrying some contraband, and on being confronted, the accused confessed that they were carrying the contraband. The police conducted a search of the scooter and recovered opium. The recovery memo (Ex.PC) was duly prepared. As per the prosecution, the laboratory also tested the contraband as opium. After completion of the investigation, prosecution was launched against both the accused. At the time o