Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said law does not require only an independent witness to prove a charge attracting the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.

A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and Aravind Kumar has dismissed an appeal filed by Jagwinder Singh against the Punjab and Haryana High Court's judgement confirming his conviction by the trial court for an offence under Section 15 of the NDPS Act.

It was found that the Singh along with others were in possession of poppy husk amounting to 54 Kgs. 

The recovery was made from the car in which the appellant was traveling. After the seizure was done in pursuance to the procedure contemplated under the NDPS Act, appropriate orders have been obtained from the Judicial Magistrate to de-seal the contraband and the samples were subsequently sent for examination. 

Trial Court convicted the appellant along with others which was subsequently confirmed by the High Court. It was submitted that the appellant was not in conscious possession of the contraband and that the CFCL form was not filled up at the place of recovery. 

"Only the police witnesses have been examined and, therefore in the absence of any independent witness, the appellant ought not to have been convicted," the counsel said.

It was also contended that the procedure contemplated under the NDPS Act, with respect to seizure and recovery, has not been complied with. The appellant was merely traveling in the car and, therefore, he ought not to have charged and convicted.

The counsel for the State submitted both the Courts below considered all the submissions and concurrently held that the appellant is liable to be convicted. The Trial Court had only imposed a minimum sentence of 10 years of rigorous imprisonment on the appellant.

After hearing the counsels, the bench said, "We find no merit in this appeal. Law does not require only an independent witness to prove a charge attracting the provisions of NDPS Act."

The court also noted as was rightly held by the Courts below, there was procedural compliance with respect to arrest, seizure and recovery. 

"PW-3 is competent to undertake the exercise of gathering evidence and, in any case, PW-7 who himself is a gazetted officer was very much present. The recovery was also made from the car. The views expressed by the Courts below that non-filling of the CFCL form at the site where the arrest and recovery was made would not vitiate the case as it constitutes a part of procedural law," the bench said.

With regard to the delay in sending the sample for the FSL report, the bench observed, "In our considered view, is not fatal to the prosecution case. In any case, orders have been obtained from the Jurisdictional Magistrate for undertaking the said exercise which has attained finality."