2004 (3) TMI 769 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Conviction under S. 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
2. Seizure of contraband without proper sealing and subsequent handling.
3. Legal requirement of sealing seized articles.
4. Possibility of tampering with unsealed contraband.
5. Impact of non-sealing on the prosecution's case.
6. Appellant's argument regarding potential tampering with unsealed contraband.
7. Doubt raised due to non-sealing and potential manipulation of seized articles.
8. Appellate court's decision to acquit based on doubts regarding tampering.

Analysis:
1. The appellant was convicted under S. 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, by the Sessions Judge and the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
2. The main issue considered by the Supreme Court was the handling of the seized contraband. The prosecution claimed that 5 kilograms of ganja were seized from the appellant's room but failed to establish proper sealing of the contraband at the time of seizure or during subsequent handling.
3. The prosecution handed over the contraband to the police without sealing, and it was later sent to the Chemical Examiner without proper sealing, raising doubts about the integrity of the evidence.
4. The appellant's counsel argued that the unsealed contraband was in the possession of the investigating agency for an extended period, creating a possibility of tampering. The courts below dismissed this argument, emphasizing the quantity of the contraband over the legal requirement of sealing.
5. Despite the non-mandatory nature of sealing under S.55 of the Act, the Supreme Court noted that the extended period of non-sealing in this case raised legitimate doubts about potential tampering with the evidence.
6. The trial court's reliance on the contraband being kept in a safe place by the police was deemed insufficient to negate the possibility of prejudice caused by the lack of sealing and potential manipulation.
7. The Supreme Court concluded that the doubt regarding tampering with the unsealed contraband, especially considering the small quantity sent for examination, was significant enough to cast uncertainty on the prosecution's case.
8. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, acquitted the appellant, discharged the bail bonds, and acknowledged the appellant's counsel's services by directing payment towards the amicus curiae.