Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ASHOK BHUSHAN, R. SUBHASH REDDY, M.R. SHAH, JJ.
Jeet Ram - Appellant
Versus
The Narcotics Control Bureau, Chandigarh - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.688 OF 2013
Decided On : 15-09-2020
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 20 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 313 – Seizure of Charas – Reversal of acquittal by High Court – Findings recorded by trial court are contrary to evidence on record and view taken by trial court was not possible at all, as such High Court rightly interfered with same and recorded its own findings to convict appellant – Trial court acquitted appellant mainly on the ground that prosecution case was not supported by independent witnesses; conscious possession was not proved; non-compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act; proper procedure was not followed in sending samples for examination and case of prosecution was unnatural and improbable – Section 50 of NDPS Act is applicable only in case of personal search, as such, there is no basis for findings recorded by trial court that there was non-compliance of provision under Section 50 of NDPS Act – There was no chance of tampering of samples – Accused not only had direct physical control over Charas, he had knowledge of its presence and character – View taken by the trial court was not at all possible, having regard to evidence on record and findings which are erroneously recorded contrary to evidence on record were rightly set aside by High Court – It is always open to appellate court to reappreciate evidence on which order of acquittal is founded – Appellate courts are vested with powers to review and come to their own conclusion – Where accused offers false answers in examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., same also can be used against him – Onus was on appellant to explain possession and in absence of same being discharged, presumption under Section 54 of NDPS Act also will kick in – Judgment of High Court does not suffer from any infirmity so as to interfere with judgment of conviction – Having regard to peculiar facts and circumstances of case and in view of fact that incident occurred in year 2001 and as appellant claimed to be a priest in temple, who is now aged about 65 years, it is appropriate that it is a fit case to modify sentence imposed on appellant – Sentence awarded on appellant reduced to period of 10 years while maintaining conviction and penalty as imposed by High Court. (Paras 10, 11, 12 and 13)
Facts of the case:
The appellant-accused was tried for a charge punishable under Section 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The Sessions Judge, Shimla acquitted accused by recording a finding that the case of prosecution was not free from doubt and there were many infirmities in the case of the prosecution to hold that the accused was found to be in possession of Charas, as alleged by the prosecution. This appeal is filed by the sole accused, aggrieved by judgment of conviction and further order of sentencing appellant, passed by High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla in Criminal Appeal.
Findings of Court:
It is clear from the evidence on record that the appellant was on the counter of the dhaba which was constructed on the land owned by his wife near the temple and the Charas was found in the counter of the dhaba in a gunny bag. The facts of the case show that accused not only had direct physical control over Charas, he had the knowledge of its presence and character.
Result : Appeal Partly allowed.
JUDGMENT
R. Subhash Reddy, J.
1. This appeal is filed by the sole accused, in Sessions Trial No.7- 5/2002 of 2001 on the file of Sessions Judge, Shimla, aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 11.12.2012 and further order of sentencing the appellant, dated 31.12.2012, passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla in Criminal Appeal No.493 of 2003.
2. The appellant-accused was tried for a charge punishable under Section 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘NDPS Act’). The Sessions Judge, Shimla by judgment dated 30.06.2003 acquitted the accused by recording a finding that the case of prosecution was not free from doubt and there were many infirmities in the case of the prosecution to hold that the accused was found to be in possession of charas, as alleged by the prosecution.
3. The case as put forth by the prosecution, briefly stated, is as under:
On 18.06.2001 the Intelligence Officer in the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), Chandigarh, by name – R.P. Singh (PW-4) was proceeding to Theog from Shimla. He was travelling along with PW-3 – O.P. Bhatt and other officials. In the transit they stopped at the dhaba to have meals which was near the Nangala Devi Temple. When they ordered meals and tea and were waiting for the food to be served, the Intelligence Officer could smell the odour of charas. In the meanwhile, the Zonal Director of NCB, Chandigarh, by name – Rakesh Goyal, who was examined as PW-1 also reached the said dhaba. Then they have questioned the appellant-accused about the smell of charas and on such questioning he became nervous. As such there was increase of suspicion of the NCB officials. On asking the owner of the dhaba, he disclosed his name to be Jeet Ram and on further questioning he tried to run away. Then he was apprehended and taken to the counter of the dhaba. Just below the counter of the dhaba a gunny bag was found. When asked, appellant has replied – there is nothing in it. Then notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was given to the accused and appellant has consented to search the same by the NCB officials. Thereafter the bag was searched and the officers have found 13 Kg. of charas. The charas was divided into two portions of 6½ Kg. each and two packets were made which were marked as ‘X’ and ‘Y’ respectively. From each of these packets, two samples of 25 grams were drawn. The samples drawn from the packet – Mark ‘X’ – were marked as ‘X1’ and ‘X2’ and the samples drawn from packet – Mark ‘Y’ – were marked as ‘Y1’ and ‘Y2’. Thereafter all the four samples were sealed in a polythene bag by heat sealing process and were put in paper envelopes and sealed with paper seals, signed by NCB officials as well as the appellant-accused Jeet Ram. On each sample seal no.6 of NCB was affixed on all the four corners and the bulk charas in packets ‘X’ and ‘Y’ was sealed in paper parcels with six seals each. The seals were handed over to PW-1 and the all the samples and the parcels were signed by NCB officials and accused. Further, in the statement recorded as contemplated under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, the appellant has admitted that for various reasons he was indulged in the trade of charas to increase his income. Thereafter a Panchnama was drawn which was signed by the appellant and he was arrested on 19.06.2001. The two samples of ‘X1’ and ‘Y1’ along with a letter were sent through PW-2 Hayat Singh to Chemical Analyst for analysis, who has vide his report opined that both the samples were of charas. On the said basis, the appellant-accused was charged and challaned for the offence under Section 20 of the NDPS Act.
4. When the charge is denied by the appellant-accused, he was tried for the aforesaid offence before the Sessions Judge, Shimla. To prove the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution has examined four witnesses in all, in support of its case. On behalf of the accused oral evidence was let in to show that the dhaba in question was not being run by him and he was em
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
