2016 (12) TMI 1 - SC - Indian Laws

Conviction under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - nature of offence - Held that - An appraisal of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and in particular of PW-4 ASI/Satnam Singh and PW-5 HC/Darbara Singh, the seizure witnesses, fully substantiate the recovery of the contraband i.e. Poppy Husk from the conscious possession of the accused persons. That the samples were properly sampled, sealed and forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory through Malkhana also stands established. The certificate of the Chemical Examiner, FSL to the effect that the seal of the samples was found intact and that the same tallied with the specimen seals also rules out the possibility of any tampering therewith. The fact that the contraband was recovered from the car while the same was being driven by one of the accused persons in the company of the other also authenticate the charge of their conscious possession thereof. The haul of six bags of Poppy Husk is substantial so much so that it negates even the remote possibility of the same being planted by the police. Furthermore no evidence with regard to bias or malice against the Investigating Agency has been adduced. In the wake of the above, we are of the unhesitant opinion in the face of the evidence on record, that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. The Courts below have appreciated the materials on record in the correct legal and factual perspectives and the findings recorded do not merit any interference. The appeal is thus dismissed. The Trial Court is hereby directed to take immediate follow up the steps so as to ensure that the sentence awarded is served out by the accused persons.

Summary

Issues:
Conviction under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 based on non-compliance with Sections 50 and 57 of the Act.

Analysis:
The appellant was convicted under Section 15 of the NDPS Act following concurrent determinations by the Trial Court and the High Court. The prosecution case involved the interception of the appellant and a co-accused with Poppy Husk in their car. The investigation officer conducted a search and recovered the contraband, following which the accused were made to face trial. The prosecution presented various witnesses to support the charge, and the accused denied the allegations during examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

The appellant's counsel argued that the Investigating Agency had violated the mandatory provisions of Sections 50 and 57 of the Act, rendering the conviction illegal. The defense relied on the decision in Mohinder Kumar vs. State to support their plea. In contrast, the respondent's counsel contended that the investigation was conducted in strict compliance with the law, including informing higher authorities promptly. The defense argued that Section 50 compliance was not essential as the contraband was found in the vehicle search, and Section 57 requirements were duly met.

The judgment highlighted the importance of Sections 50 and 57 of the Act. Section 50 pertains to search of persons, while Section 57 mandates reporting of arrests and seizures. The Court emphasized that Section 50 applies to searches of individuals, not premises, and in this case, the contraband was found in the car, not on the accused persons. Regarding Section 57, the Investigating Officer promptly reported the arrest and seizure to the higher officer and the Magistrate, fulfilling the statutory requirements.

The Court examined precedents like State of Punjab vs. Baldev Singh and Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja vs. State of Gujarat to clarify the applicability of Sections 50 and 57. It distinguished the case from Mohinder Kumar, emphasizing that substantial compliance with Section 57 suffices and non-compliance must demonstrate prejudice to the accused. The judgment also referenced Balbir Singh and Sajan Abraham cases to illustrate the non-mandatory nature of Section 57 and the need to assess any failure's impact on the case.

Additionally, the Court evaluated the testimony of prosecution witnesses, particularly the seizure witnesses, confirming the recovery of Poppy Husk from the accused's possession. The evidence of proper sampling, sealing, and forensic examination further supported the prosecution's case. The Court concluded that the prosecution had proven the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, upholding the lower courts' findings and dismissing the appeal. The Trial Court was directed to ensure the sentence's prompt execution for the accused.