2010 Supreme(SC) 293

2010 (2) Supreme 749
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma and A.K. Patnaik, JJ.
State of Punjab — Appellant
versus
Lakhwinder Singh & Anr. — Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 2009
Decided on : 05-04-2010

IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Once possession is established, the person who claims that it was not a conscious possession has to establish it because how he came to be in possession of the same is within his special knowledge.
2. Where cogent and reliable evidence showed that the opium was seized and sealed and that samples were intact till they were handed over to Chemical Examiner, the delay itself was held to be not fatal to the prosecution case.

Headnote:Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985- Section 15- Recovery of poppy husk from 35 bags on which respondents were found sitting-Conviction by Trial Court-Appeal-Allowed by High Court acquitting respondents-Appeal- Evidence was led by prosecution to establish that respondents were found sitting on bags of poppy husk- It was also stated by Sub-Inspector as also the Assistant Sub-Inspector that the presence of accused respondents at such an early hour, i.e., 8.00 a.m. near a religious place with such large number of bags and their sitting on them and on seeing the police party their conduct of trying to hide themselves behind the bags proved and established that they were in possession of said bags-The very fact that they tried to hide themselves behind the bags made the police party suspicious about contents of the bags which led to a search of the said bags and on search being carried out in accordance with law, suspicion that bags contained contraband was confirmed-.The respondents, during the trial, could not give any satisfactory reply as to how and why they came from Haryana and were found sitting on bags of poppy husk- Their subsequent conduct of hiding behind the bags also showed their guilty mind- Evidence adduced by both the Sub-Inspectors as also by the Assistant Sub- Inspector examined as PW-3 and PW-4 also proved and established that both respondents were in conscious possession of contraband goods- So far as seizure of contraband goods was concerned, discrepancies pointed out by High Court were very minor and they were not very material- Defence had not been able to prove that said seizure and seal put in the samples were in any manner tampered with before it was examined by the Chemical Examiner- Merely a delay of about seven days in sending the samples to the Forensic Examiner held not fatal to prosecution case-Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, held that view taken by High Court was palpably wrong and the findings recorded are also perverse- Hence impugned judgment and order passed by High Court was set aside and order of trial Court was restored-Appeal disposed of. (Paras 14 to 19)

       Facts of the Case :

       Conviction of respondents by Trial Court on Recovery of poppy husk from 35 bags on which respondents were found sitting. Appeal thereagainst was allowed by High Court acquitting respondents.

       2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.

       Findings of the Court :

       Evidence was led by prosecution to establish that respondents were found sitting on bags of poppy husk. It was also stated by Sub-Inspector as also the Assistant Sub-Inspector that the presence of accused respondents at such an early hour, i.e., 8.00 a.m. near a religious place with such large number of bags and their sitting on them and on seeing the police party their conduct of trying to hide themselves behind the bags proved and established that they were in possession of said bags.The very fact that they tried to hide themselves behind the bags made the police party suspicious about contents of the bags which led to a search of the said bags and on search being carried out in accordance with law, suspicion that bags contained contraband was confirmed. The respondents, during the trial, could not give any satisfactory reply as to how and why they came from Haryana and were found sitting on bags of poppy husk. Their subsequent conduct of hiding behind the bags also showed their guilty mind. Evidence adduced by both the Sub-Inspectors as also by the Assistant Sub- Inspector examined as PW-3 and PW-4 also proved and Established that both respondents were in conscious possession of contraband goods. So far as seizure of contraband goods was concerned, discrepancies pointed out by High Court were very minor and they were not very material. Defence had not been able to prove that said seizure and seal put in the samples were in any manner tampered with before it was examined by the Chemical Examiner. Merely a delay of about seven days in sending the samples to the Forensic Examiner was held not fatal to prosecution case. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, held that view taken by High Court was palpably wrong and the findings recorded were also perverse. Hence impugned judgment and order passed by High Court was set aside and order of trial Court was restored. Appeal was disposed of.

       Result : Appeal disposed of.

       Advocates Appeared :

       Kuldeep Singh, Adv., for the Appellant(s).

       Manoj Mittal, Dr. Kailash Chand, Advs., for the Respondent(s).