2016 (4) TMI 538 - SC - Customs

Seeking modification in rigorous imprisonment and payment of fine order - Possession of 1 kg of opium without any permit or licence - Search was conducted in the presence of and on the instructions of Gazetted officer - Held that - the extracts of depositions of other prosecution witnesses show that it was not Satbir Singh alone who was involved in the investigation. Therefore, relevant to the note that this was not even a ground projected in support of the case of appellant and does not find any reference in the judgment under appeal, the submission is rejected. Therefore, there is no reason to differ from the view taken by the High Court. - Apex Court decided against the appellant

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against conviction under Section 18 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appellant appealed against his conviction under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The prosecution's case was based on the apprehension of the appellant at a bus stand following secret information received by PW6 SI Satbir Singh. The appellant was suspected of selling opium and was subsequently searched, leading to the recovery of 1 kg of opium from his possession. The entire process of search, recovery, sealing, and deposition of the case property was meticulously documented and witnessed by various police officials.

2. The prosecution presented six witnesses to support its case, including PW1 ASI Bishamber Lal, PW2 Head Constable Om Parkash, PW3 Yad Ram SHO, and PW4 Shyam Singh Rana DSP. Each witness provided detailed accounts of their involvement in the investigation, search, and recovery process. The FSL report confirmed the recovered substance as opium, leading to the appellant being charge-sheeted and tried for the offense under Section 18 of the Act.

3. The Trial Court found the appellant guilty and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for five years along with a fine. The appellant challenged this judgment through a Criminal Appeal in the High Court, which upheld the Trial Court's decision. The present appeal before the Supreme Court questioned the correctness of the High Court's view on the matter.

4. The appellant's counsel argued that the investigation conducted by PW6 SI Satbir Singh, who was also the complainant, was improper, citing a previous court decision. The Supreme Court analyzed the precedent cited and distinguished the present case from the circumstances in the previous case. The Court noted that the search in this case was conducted in the presence of PW4 under proper procedures, unlike the deficiencies highlighted in the previous case.

5. After careful consideration, the Supreme Court found no reason to differ from the High Court's view and dismissed the appeal against the conviction under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The Court rejected the appellant's argument regarding the impropriety of the investigation and upheld the lower courts' decisions based on the evidence and legal principles applied during the trial.