Page 1

JUDGMENT

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1327 of 2010

Ram Swaroop

... Appellant

Versus

State (Govt. NCT) of Delhi

...Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Dipak Misra, J.

The appellant herein has been found guilty of the

offence under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “the NDPS

Act”) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for

a period of ten years and to pay a fine of rupees one lakh

and, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple

imprisonment for two years.

Page 2

JUDGMENT

2.

On 22.7.2005, Ritesh Kumar, a Sub-Inspector, while

patrolling reached at the outer gate of ISBT where

Constable Balwant Singh met him and both of them

found the accused-appellant sitting on two white

coloured bags on the left side of the footpath. On

seeing the police party he tried to run away leaving

the bags which raised a suspicion in the mind of the

Sub-Inspector and that led to the apprehension and

interrogation of the accused. Eventually, on search

of the bags, it was found that those contained 64

Kgs. of poppy straw powder packed in 32 bags of

polythene. After the search was carried out samples

were sealed and sent to the Forensic Science

Laboratory for examination. The investigating

agency on completion of other formalities filed the

charge-sheet before the trial Court.

3.

The accused pleaded false implication and claimed

to be tried.

4.

On behalf of the prosecution eight witnesses were

examined including the Sub-Inspector, Ritesh Kumar,

and Constable Balwant Singh. The learned Additional

2

Page 3

JUDGMENT

Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 90 of

2006, considering the material on record, found the

accused guilty of the offence and imposed the

sentence as has been stated hereinbefore.

5.

Ms. Sushmita Lal, learned counsel for the appellant,

has raised two contentions, namely, (i) though the

alleged seizure had taken place at a crowded place,

yet the prosecution chose not to examine any

independent witness and in the absence of

corroboration from independent witnesses the

evidence of only police officials should not have been

given credence to and (ii) there has been non-

compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act inasmuch

as the accused was not informed his right to be

searched in presence of a gazetted officer or a

Magistrate despite the mandatory nature of the

provision and, therefore, the conviction is vitiated.

6.

Per contra, it is urged by Mr. Rakesh Khanna, learned

Additional Solicitor General and Mr. Vivek Chib,

learned advocate appearing for the respondent, state

that the learned trial Judge as well as the High Court

3

Page 4

JUDGMENT

has correctly placed reliance on the testimony of the

official witnesses and there is no mandatory rule that

non-examination of independent witnesses in all

circumstances would vitiate the trial. It is their

further submission that Section 50 of the NDPS Act is

not attracted to the case at hand as two bags were

searched and not the person of the accused-

appellant.

7.

To appreciate the first limb of submission, we have

carefully scrutinized the evidence brought on record

and perused the judgment of the High Court and that

of the trial Court. It is noticeable that the evidence

of PW-7, namely, Ritesh Kumar, has been supported

by Balwant Singh, PW-5, as well as other witnesses.

It has come in the evidence of Ritesh Kumar that he

had asked the passerby to be witnesses but none of

them agreed and left without disclosing their names

and addresses. On a careful perusal of their version

we do not notice anything by which their evidence

can be treated to be untrustworthy. On the contrary

it is absolutely unimpeachable. We may note here

4

Page 5

JUDGMENT

with profit there is