2012 (8) TMI 1182 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the search and seizure procedure.
2. Reliability of the prosecution witnesses.
3. Non-examination of independent witnesses.
4. Possibility of tampering with the sample.
5. Recording of the purpose of the police visit.

Summary of Judgment:

1. Legality of the Search and Seizure Procedure:
The prosecution's case was that on 09.01.2002, a police team conducted a traffic check and intercepted a motorcycle without a registration number. The pillion rider was carrying a bag containing charas. The accused consented to be searched by the police officials present. The charas weighed 3 Kg. 100 grams, and samples were taken and sealed. The trial court acquitted the respondents, questioning the validity of the consent memo and the lack of independent witnesses.

2. Reliability of the Prosecution Witnesses:
The High Court found the statements of the official witnesses trustworthy and reliable. It emphasized that "the conviction can be recorded merely on the basis of statement of official witness, if it inspires confidence." The court noted that there were no contradictions in the statements of the police officials involved in the search and seizure.

3. Non-examination of Independent Witnesses:
The trial court's acquittal was partly based on the non-examination of independent witnesses. However, the High Court cited several Supreme Court judgments, including *Ravindran alias John Vs. Superintendent of Customs* and *Girja Prasad Vs. State of M.P.*, which held that the testimony of official witnesses could be sufficient for conviction if it inspires confidence. The court noted that efforts were made to include independent witnesses, but they were either hostile or unavailable.

4. Possibility of Tampering with the Sample:
The defense argued that the sample could have been tampered with as it remained in the police station. The High Court dismissed this argument, noting that the sample was received intact by the Chemical Analyst, as confirmed by PW-9.

5. Recording of the Purpose of the Police Visit:
The defense also argued that the police did not record the purpose of their visit in the rapat roznamcha. The High Court found that the departure report was recorded, as stated by PW-1, Constable Sunder Singh.

Conclusion:
The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the trial court's judgment and convicting the accused u/s 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The court ordered the accused to be produced for sentencing.