2019 (9) TMI 1281 - SC - Indian Laws

Seizure and recovery of Contraband - poppy straw - Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - only two samples packets and one bag of poppy straw weighing 2.5 kg were produced and exhibited while the entire contraband material was not produced and exhibited. Whether the cases relied upon by the High Court state in unequivocal terms that in case of failure to produce the contraband material before the Court, the case of the prosecution is required to be discarded or not? HELD THAT - Reliance placed in the case of JITENDRA ANR. VERSUS STATE OF MP. 2003 (9) TMI 709 - SUPREME COURT relying on which the benefit of doubt was given and the accused was acquitted. The evidence of PW15 Surender Singh shows that from and out of 7 bags of poppy husk, samples weighing about 500 grams were taken out of each bag. Out of these 3500 grams thus taken out, two samples of 500 grams were independently sealed while rest 2500 grams were also sealed in a separate pouch. These samples were marked A, B and C respectively. The bags were also independently sealed and taken in custody and Exbt-5 seizure memo which recorded all these facts was also signed by the accused. Cross-examination of witnesses - HELD THAT - At no stage even a suggestion was put to the witness that either the signatures of the accused were taken by fraud, coercion or mis-representation or that the signatures were not of the accused or that they did not understand the purport of the seizure memo. It would therefore be difficult to even suggest that the seizure of contraband weighing 223 kgs was not proved by the prosecution - In our view this fact stood conclusively proven. The conclusion drawn by the High Court was completely unsustainable and the High Court erred in extending the benefit of acquittal to the respondent - the view taken by the High Court is set aside and the order of conviction as recorded by the trial court against the respondent in its judgment and order dated 01.08.2015 is restored - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the seizure and recovery process under the NDPS Act.
2. Requirement of producing the entire contraband material before the court.
3. Sufficiency of evidence for conviction under the NDPS Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the seizure and recovery process under the NDPS Act:
The case began with source information received on 20.06.2006 about a vehicle carrying contraband material (poppy straw). The information was documented and forwarded to superior officers as required by Section 42 of the NDPS Act. A police team intercepted the vehicle, conducted a search, and found seven bags of poppy straw weighing 223 kgs. Samples were taken, sealed, and a punchnama was prepared. The trial court found the respondent guilty under Section 8 read with 15 of the NDPS Act, sentencing him to 15 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ?1,50,000, noting that the accused had no valid license and the quantity seized was more than the commercial quantity.

2. Requirement of producing the entire contraband material before the court:
The High Court acquitted the respondent on the ground that the entire contraband material was not produced in court, relying on precedents like Noor Aga v. State of Punjab, Jitendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Ashok alias Dangra Jaiswal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, and Vijay Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh. The Supreme Court analyzed these cases and concluded that non-production of the contraband material alone was not sufficient for acquittal. The Court emphasized that if the seizure is otherwise proven and not disputed, the entire contraband material need not be produced. The Court noted that the seized material was bulky (223 kgs), making it impractical to produce in court. The essential requirement was to prove that the samples taken were kept intact and matched the forensic report.

3. Sufficiency of evidence for conviction under the NDPS Act:
The Supreme Court found that the prosecution had conclusively proven the seizure of 223 kgs of poppy straw. The evidence included the seizure memo signed by the accused, and no suggestion was made that the signatures were obtained by fraud or coercion. The Court highlighted that the seizure memo and the intact samples submitted for forensic examination were sufficient to establish the nature and quantity of the contraband. The High Court's decision to acquit based on non-production of the entire contraband was deemed unsustainable.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's acquittal, and restored the trial court's conviction. The sentence was modified to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment, keeping the fine and default sentence unchanged. The respondent was directed to surrender within seven days, failing which the police were instructed to take him into custody.