2018 (5) TMI 120 - SC - Indian Laws

Preserving of case property - case of respondent is that the case property was destroyed under the provisions of the Act and the inventory and photographs were submitted during trial which form primary evidence under the Act - Held that - The contraband stuff as also the samples sealed as usual were handed over physically to the Investigating Officer Harvinder Singh (PW 6). Also the trial Court in its judgment specifically passed instructions to preserve the seized property and record of the case in safe custody, as the co-accused Bhanwarlal was absconding. Omission on the part of the prosecution to produce the bulk quantity of seized opium would create a doubt in the mind of Court on the genuineness of the samples drawn and marked as A, B, C, D, E, F from the allegedly seized contraband. However, the simple argument that the same had been destroyed, cannot be accepted as it is not clear that on what authority it was done. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against acquittal under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
2. Disposal of seized contraband material by Executive Magistrate.
3. Validity of confessional statement under Section 67 of the Act.
4. Reliability of prosecution evidence and witness testimonies.
5. Compliance with legal procedures for destruction of seized contraband material.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Appeal against acquittal under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
The Supreme Court was tasked with examining Criminal Appeal No. 741 of 2011, challenging the High Court's judgment acquitting the respondent of charges under Section 8/18(B) read with Section 29 of the Act. The appeal stemmed from the seizure of 7.2 kg of opium from the accused-respondent, leading to his conviction by the Special Judge, Neemuch. The High Court overturned the conviction, prompting the State's appeal before the Supreme Court.

Issue 2: Disposal of seized contraband material by Executive Magistrate
The prosecution's case faced scrutiny regarding the disposal of the seized contraband material by the Executive Magistrate. The High Court observed discrepancies in the disposal process, highlighting that the bulk quantity of the seized property was not properly disposed of, as the remaining material was returned to the Investigating Officer instead of being destroyed as per legal procedures. This raised doubts about the authenticity of the samples and weakened the prosecution's case.

Issue 3: Validity of confessional statement under Section 67 of the Act
The validity of the confessional statement made by the accused under Section 67 of the Act came under question. The prosecution's claim that the accused voluntarily confessed to the crime was challenged, as it was revealed that the statement was recorded while the accused was in police custody after arrest. The absence of specific timing on the statements and discrepancies in the recording process cast doubt on the voluntariness of the confession, undermining its legal validity.

Issue 4: Reliability of prosecution evidence and witness testimonies
The Supreme Court analyzed the reliability of the prosecution's evidence and witness testimonies. Independent witnesses turned hostile, raising concerns about the credibility of the case presented by the prosecution. Witness testimonies were questioned, with indications that signatures were obtained under duress, further diminishing the prosecution's case against the accused.

Issue 5: Compliance with legal procedures for destruction of seized contraband material
The Court emphasized the importance of complying with legal procedures for the destruction of seized contraband material. It was noted that no application was filed for the disposal or destruction of the seized bulk quantity of contraband material, and no court order was obtained for the same. The absence of proper authorization for disposal raised doubts about the prosecution's handling of the evidence and adherence to legal requirements, impacting the evidentiary value of the case.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, dismissing the appeal against the acquittal of the accused-respondent. The Court found no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned decision, citing discrepancies in the disposal process, doubts regarding the validity of the confessional statement, and concerns about the reliability of prosecution evidence and witness testimonies. The appeal lacked merit, leading to its dismissal by the Court.