2009 (3) TMI 914 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether order of acquittal be challenged? Held that - The High Court, for good and sufficient reasons, had arrived at findings of fact both with regard to voluntariness of the purported confessions made by the respondents as also compliance of the mandatory statutory provisions vis- vis directions issued by the Central Government in making search, seizure as also taking of samples for the purpose of chemical examination having been doubted, we do not see any reason why we should take a contrary view as it is well-known that the appellate court would not interfere with a judgment of acquittal only because another view is possible. On the other hand, if two views are possible, it is trite, the appellate court shall not interfere. Appeal dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility and voluntariness of confessions.
2. Compliance with mandatory provisions under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).
3. Validity of search and seizure operations.
4. Requirement of corroboration by independent witnesses.
5. Procedural lapses in handling and sampling of the seized contraband.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Admissibility and Voluntariness of Confessions:
The Supreme Court scrutinized the confessions made by the respondents, noting that they were retracted at the earliest opportunity. The Court emphasized that confessions made under duress or coercion cannot be relied upon unless corroborated by independent evidence. The Court observed, "The purported confessions made by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 could not in absence of other corroboration form the basis of conviction." The Court also highlighted that confessions made while in custody must be voluntary to be admissible, referencing precedents like D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal and State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh.

2. Compliance with Mandatory Provisions under the NDPS Act:
The Court noted several procedural lapses in compliance with the NDPS Act. It was observed that the mandatory requirement under Section 42 of the Act, which mandates recording secret information in writing and forwarding it to superior officers, was not complied with. The Court stated, "No explanation has been offered as to why the mandatory requirements of law could not be complied with." Furthermore, the Court emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural safeguards to ensure the legitimacy of judicial processes.

3. Validity of Search and Seizure Operations:
The Court found that the search and seizure operations were flawed due to non-compliance with the Standing Instructions No. 1/88 and Section 55 of the NDPS Act. The Court noted, "There is nothing to show that adequate quantity from each bag had been taken," highlighting the improper sampling method. Additionally, the Court pointed out that the officer in charge did not testify adequately about the handling and sealing of the seized contraband, which compromised the integrity of the evidence.

4. Requirement of Corroboration by Independent Witnesses:
The Court underscored the necessity of corroborating confessions with independent evidence, especially when the confessions are retracted. The Court remarked, "Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 could not have been convicted on the basis of their own confessions, which had been retracted, as the same had not been corroborated by any independent witness." The Court reiterated that independent corroboration is crucial to lend credibility to the prosecution's case.

5. Procedural Lapses in Handling and Sampling of the Seized Contraband:
The Court identified significant procedural lapses in the handling and sampling of the seized contraband. It was observed that the samples were not taken in compliance with the prescribed procedures, leading to doubts about the integrity of the evidence. The Court stated, "The High Court has noticed that PW-7 had taken samples of 25 grams each from all the five bags and then mixed them and sent to the laboratory." This improper sampling method violated the Standing Instructions and compromised the prosecution's case.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to acquit the respondents due to multiple procedural lapses and the lack of independent corroboration of the confessions. The Court emphasized the importance of strict compliance with the statutory provisions and procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act to ensure fair and just legal proceedings. The appeal was dismissed, reinforcing the principle that the appellate court should not interfere with a judgment of acquittal unless there are compelling reasons to do so.

← Previous Next →