2013 (5) TMI 693 - SC - Indian Laws

Guilty of the offence under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - on search of the bags of appellant it was found that those contained 64 Kgs. of poppy straw powder packed in 32 bags of polythene - appellant contested that in the absence of corroboration from independent witnesses the evidence of only police officials should not have been given credence to - Held that - 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 nothing by which their evidence can be treated to be untrustworthy. On the contrary it is absolutely unimpeachable. As there is no absolute rule that police officers cannot be cited as witnesses and their depositions should be treated with suspect therefore, the prosecution case cannot be doubted for non-examining the independent witnesses. Non-compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act - Held that - In the case at hand 32 bags of poppy straw powder weighing 64 Kgs. had been seized from two bags. It has not been seized from the person of the accused-appellant. It has been established by adducing cogent and reliable evidence that the bags belonged to the appellant. As relying on Madan Lal v. State of H.P. 2003 (8) TMI 474 - SUPREME COURT and State of H.P. v. Pawan Kumar 2004 (9) TMI 602 - SUPREME COURT applying the interpretation of the word search of person to facts of present case, it is clear that the compliance with Section 50 of the Act is not required. Therefore, the search conducted by the investigating officer and the evidence collected thereby, is not illegal. Consequently, no merit in the contention of appellant as regards the non-compliance with Section 50 of the Act. Appeal rejected.

Summary

Issues:
1. Conviction under Section 15 of the NDPS Act
2. Non-examination of independent witnesses
3. Non-compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act

Analysis:
1. The appellant was found guilty under Section 15 of the NDPS Act for possessing 64 Kgs. of poppy straw powder. The appellant was sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of one lakh rupees. The case involved a search conducted by a Sub-Inspector and a Constable, leading to the apprehension of the accused. Samples were sent for forensic examination, and a charge-sheet was filed before the trial Court, resulting in the appellant's conviction and sentencing.

2. The defense contended that the prosecution did not examine any independent witnesses, challenging the credibility of the evidence provided by police officials. However, the court cited precedents emphasizing the reliability of police officers' testimonies, especially in cases where independent witnesses are reluctant to come forward. The court highlighted that the absence of independent witnesses does not automatically discredit the prosecution case.

3. The defense also argued non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, stating that the accused was not informed of the right to be searched in the presence of a gazetted officer or a Magistrate. Citing previous judgments, the defense asserted the mandatory nature of Section 50. However, the court clarified that in this case, 32 bags of poppy straw powder were seized from two bags and not from the person of the accused. Referring to relevant case law, the court concluded that there was no non-compliance with Section 50 in the present scenario, as the search was conducted on the bags and not the person of the accused.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the conviction under Section 15 of the NDPS Act was valid. The court upheld the credibility of the police officials' testimonies, emphasizing the trust placed in their actions. Additionally, the court found no merit in the argument of non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, as the search was conducted on the bags and not the person of the accused.