2016 (9) TMI 668 - SC - Indian Laws

Conviction under Section 15 read with Section 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - sentence of rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay fine of ₹ 20,000/- - further rigorous imprisonment for six months, in default of payment of fine - poppy-straw - contraband goods - sale to co-accused who did not have valid license - Maharashtra NDPS Rules, 1985 - raid - search of premises - testing of colored powder found in a polythene bag in which opium was present - Held that - the appellant was found to have sold the contraband to the co-accused without any licence. The said finding, inter alia, is based on the evidence of PW1- Bhaskar Shetty, Inspector of Customs who seized the contraband from the co-accused- Karim Patel. The evidence in the form of statement of the appellant himself (Ex.-20) under Section 67 of the Act before his arrest clearly shows that the appellant had sold the contraband to the co-accused- Karim Patel who did not have any licence to purchase thereof. At the time of production of gunny bag no objection was raised on behalf of the appellant that the bag did not carry any label or sign of identity - the absence of label and sign of identity could not be presumed - no serious infirmity in the findings recorded by the courts in convicting and sentencing the appellant - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Issues:
1. Conviction under Section 15 read with Section 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
2. Sale of 30 Kgs. of poppy straw without a valid license.
3. Legal validity of the evidence presented.
4. Compliance with legal procedures during investigation and trial.
5. Admissibility and reliability of the statement recorded under Section 67 of the Act.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Conviction under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act
The appellant appealed against his conviction under Section 15 read with Section 8(c) of the Act for selling 30 Kgs. of poppy straw without a valid license. The prosecution's case was based on the recovery of the contraband from the co-accused, who confirmed purchasing it without a bill. The trial court convicted the appellant for illegal sale and possession, but the High Court upheld only the conviction for the illegal sale transaction. The appellant argued discrepancies in the recording of prior information, violation of Section 42 of the Act, and lack of maintenance of sample records. However, the courts found the evidence of the sale and connection of the contraband to the appellant to be sufficient for conviction.

Issue 2: Sale of Poppy Straw without a Valid License
The appellant was found guilty of selling poppy straw without a valid license, as confirmed by the co-accused who purchased the contraband. The courts upheld the conviction based on the evidence of the sale, the statement of the appellant under Section 67, and the lack of authorization for the sale. The absence of a label on the gunny bag was not considered a significant factor, as the contraband's connection to the appellant was established. The chemical examiner's testimony confirmed the integrity of the samples, supporting the conviction for the illegal sale of poppy straw.

Issue 3: Legal Validity of Evidence Presented
The appellant challenged the admissibility and reliability of the evidence presented, particularly the statement recorded under Section 67 of the Act. The appellant argued that the statement was not voluntary, lacked independent witnesses, and should not be considered substantive evidence. However, the courts found the statement to be corroborative evidence, supported by the circumstances of the sale and the recovery of the contraband. The prosecution's case was deemed strong, with no grounds to interfere with the conviction and sentence based on the evidence presented.

Issue 4: Compliance with Legal Procedures
The appellant raised concerns about the compliance with legal procedures during investigation and trial, citing judgments related to the recording of information and statements under the Act. The courts clarified that Section 42 did not apply to the case, as the recovery was made from a public place covered under Section 43. The courts emphasized substantial compliance and the voluntary nature of the statement under Section 67, concluding that the legal procedures were followed adequately in the case.

Issue 5: Admissibility of Statement under Section 67
The appellant's contention regarding the admissibility of the statement under Section 67 was dismissed by the courts, emphasizing the voluntary nature of the statement and its alignment with the evidence of the illegal sale. The courts highlighted the importance of assessing the circumstances of each case to determine the voluntariness of such statements. The prosecution's case, supported by the evidence of the sale and recovery, was deemed sufficient to uphold the conviction and sentence.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the illegal sale of poppy straw without a valid license under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

← Previous Next →