2020 (1) TMI 202 - SC - Indian Laws

Smuggling - Opium - offence punishable under Section 18 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - cogent evidence of offence or not - HELD THAT - From the evidence on record in this case the prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction recorded and the sentence imposed is in conformity with the provisions of law and evidence on record, thus no interference is called for - this appeal is devoid of merits, and the same is dismissed. As the appellant-accused is on bail, the bail bonds are cancelled. He shall surrender within a period of four weeks from today, to serve remaining period of sentence, failing which, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, shall take necessary steps to take the appellant into custody to serve remaining period of sentence.

Summary

Issues:
1. Conviction under Section 18 of NDPS Act, 1985 based on possession of opium.
2. Non-examination of witnesses like ASI and independent witnesses.
3. Violation of Section 50 of NDPS Act, 1985.
4. Reliance on judgments to support arguments.
5. Completeness of evidence chain and guilt proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Issue 1: Conviction under Section 18 of NDPS Act, 1985 based on possession of opium

The appellant was convicted under Section 18 of the NDPS Act, 1985 for possessing 1 kg 750 grams of opium. The prosecution's case detailed the circumstances leading to the appellant's apprehension, search, and seizure of the contraband. The Trial Court and High Court upheld the conviction, finding that the prosecution had successfully proven the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment was based on both oral and documentary evidence, leading to the imposition of a 10-year rigorous imprisonment term and a fine of ?1,00,000.

Issue 2: Non-examination of witnesses like ASI and independent witnesses

The appellant's counsel argued that the non-examination of witnesses like ASI and independent witnesses created gaps in the evidence chain, potentially leading to a false conviction. However, the courts found that the absence of certain witnesses did not affect the prosecution's case significantly. For instance, the ASI who was summoned but not examined did not impact the integrity of the case as the seals on the evidence were found intact. The lack of independent witnesses was addressed by the court, emphasizing that the testimony of official witnesses should not be discounted solely due to the absence of independent corroboration.

Issue 3: Violation of Section 50 of NDPS Act, 1985

The defense contended that the non-examination of the ASP and alleged violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, 1985 were fatal to the prosecution's case. However, it was established that the ASP's absence during certain proceedings did not invalidate the search and seizure operation. The courts noted that the ASP's presence was crucial during the search, and the failure to examine him did not undermine the legality of the evidence collection process. The prosecution's explanation for the ASP's non-appearance was deemed satisfactory, and the chain of evidence was considered complete.

Issue 4: Reliance on judgments to support arguments

Both the appellant's counsel and the respondent's counsel relied on various judgments to bolster their respective arguments. The appellant's counsel cited cases like Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra and Noor Aga v. State of Punjab & Anr to challenge the conviction. Conversely, the respondent's counsel invoked cases like Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab and Varinder Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh to support the prosecution's stance. The courts considered these precedents but ultimately based their decision on the specific facts and evidence presented in the current case.

Issue 5: Completeness of evidence chain and guilt proof beyond reasonable doubt

After a thorough analysis of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court and High Court concluded that the prosecution had successfully established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The courts found the evidence chain to be complete, with no substantial gaps or inconsistencies that could cast doubt on the conviction. Consequently, the conviction and sentence imposed were deemed lawful and in accordance with the provisions of the law, leading to the dismissal of the appeal on grounds of merit.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 18 of the NDPS Act, 1985, emphasizing the sufficiency of evidence, the integrity of the evidence chain, and the establishment of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The dismissal of the appeal signified the court's confidence in the correctness of the lower courts' decisions and the adherence to legal procedures throughout the trial process.