BAHADUR SINGH versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 430 · Decided: 04-12-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: U.C. BANERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
BAHADUR SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR. 
DECEMBER 4, 2001 
[UMESH C. BANERJEE AND Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.] 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 
Sections 8, 15 and 35-Recovery and seizure of contraband-Panek 
witness denying that contraband recovered and seized in his presence-Convic-
tion based on sole testin1ony o.f Investigating Officer-,5erious discrepancies in 
recovery, seizure and deposit of contraband in Maa/khana-Held, accused 
entitled to benefit Qf doubt. 
Prosecution alleged that poppy straw weighing 3.900 kgs. was recov· 
ered from the truck driven by appellant. Special Court convicted driver 
and cleaner of the truck for offences under Section 8 read with Section 15 
of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. In appeal, High 
Court acquitted cleaner but upheld the conviction of driver. Hence, this 
appeal by truck-driver. 
E 
Appellant contended tha! there was no reliable evidence to establish 
recovery and seizure of contraband and that conviction on the sole testi-
mony of the Investigating Officer, PW 3, was unwarranted. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD : 1. The question of applicability of Section 35 of the Narcotic 
G 
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 will not arise when the 
recovery itself is doubtful. The appellant had disputed the recovery of 
contraband. There are serious discrepancies in its recovery, seizure and 
deposit in the Maalkhana. Prosecution examined only one Panch Witness 
who denied that in his presence contraband was recovered from the driver 
and cleaner of the truck. Investigating officer had taken the search of the 
truck before the arrival of panch witness. Under the circumstances the 
appellant cannot be convicted on the sole testimony of police witness, tbe 
Investigating Officer. The prosecution has thus failed to prove its case 
beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellant and so he is entitled to 
H 
benefit of doubt. (434-B; 431-F] 
430 
BAHADUR SINGH v. STATE [SABHARWAL, l.] 
431 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 824 
A 
of 2000. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.3.2000 of the Madhya Pradesh 
High Court in Cr! A. No. 2502 of 1999. 
Shiv Sagar Tiwari for the Appellant. 
Mrs. Madhur Dudani, for Prakash Shrivastava and B.S. Banthia for the 
Responents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
Y.K. SABHARWAL, J. The appellant, Bahadur Singh and one Amreek 
C 
Singh were convicted by the Special Court constituted under the Narcotic 
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act') having been 
found guilty for the offence under Section 8 read with Section 15 of the Act. 
Both of them were sentenced to IO years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine 
of Rs. I lakh each. The High Court has, however, allowed the appeal of Amreek 
D 
Singh. His conviction and semence has been set aside. The conviction and 
sentence of Bahadur Singh having been maintained, he is in appeal before us 
on grant of special leave. 
Bahadur Singh was a driver and Amreek Singh a cleaner of a truck. The 
case of the prosecution is that information had been received that the poppy 
E 
straw is being carried in the said truck. On search of the truck four polythene 
bags containing poppy straw weighing 3.900 kgs. was found. After completion 
of the formalities, the accused were tried which resulted in the conviction and 
sentence as aforesaid. 
According to the prosecution there were two independent witnesses in 
F 
whose presence the poppy straw was recovered and seized. The prosecution, 
however, examined only one of them, namely, Pawan Kumar Sharma, PW!. 
PW!. did not support the prosecution and was declared hostile. He though 
adntitted his signatures as a panch witness to the documents but denied that in 
his presence 3.900 kgs. of poppy straw was recovered and seized from the 
G 
driver, Bahadur Singh and cleaner, Amreek Singh. The conviction was, how-
ever, based on the sole testimony of Investigatmg Officer, Head Constable 
Gontiya, PW3. 
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no reliable evi-
dence to establish the recovery and seizure of the contraband and on the facts 
H 
432 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
and circumstances of the case the conviction on the sole testimony of PW3 is 
unwarranted. There is substance in the submission. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
There are serious material discrepancies in the evidence in respect of 
recovery and seizur

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.