2008 (7) TMI 965 - SC - Customs

Whether the evidence of the official witness suffers from any infirmity? Whether merely because the officials witnesses were examined that cannot be a ground to suspect the prosecution version?

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the acquittal under Section 17 of the NDPS Act, violation of Section 50, sufficiency of evidence, applicability of Section 50 for search, integrity of seals, surrender of the accused.

Acquittal Challenge:
The appeal challenged the acquittal directed by the Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The accused was initially found guilty under Section 17 of the NDPS Act by the Additional Sessions Judge III, Hissar, and sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment. The trial judge convicted the accused based on the prosecution's established case.

Violation of Section 50:
The High Court allowed the appeal citing a violation of Section 50 of the Act. It noted the absence of elaborate reasons for suspicion regarding the accused's possession of opium and the lack of independent witnesses at the railway station where the recovery was made. The defense argued that Section 50 did not apply as it was a search of a bag, not a personal search, and there was no legal requirement to record reasons for suspicion.

Sufficiency of Evidence:
The defense contended that the High Court's reasoning was flawed as there was no evidence to suggest the seals were not intact, and the official witnesses' testimony remained credible. The Trial Court found the procedures were followed, and the High Court's doubts were unfounded regarding the suspicion recording and witness examination.

Applicability of Section 50:
The defense emphasized that Section 50 pertains to personal searches, not searches of bags or containers, citing relevant case law to support this interpretation. The judgment highlighted the clarity of Section 50's language and the settled legal position on its application, dismissing the High Court's finding of non-compliance.

Integrity of Seals:
The Trial Court affirmed the seals' integrity based on official witness testimony, contrary to the High Court's conclusion. The defense argued that no evidence challenged the seals' integrity, and the Trial Court's findings were conclusive on this matter.

Surrender of the Accused:
The judgment set aside the High Court's decision, ordering the accused to surrender immediately to serve the remaining sentence. The defense raised concerns about the accused's age and the quantity of opium involved, but the Court upheld the original conviction and sentencing.