DAULAT RAM & ANR. versus CBN MANDSAUR, M.P.

Citation: [2011] 1 S.C.R. 1092 · Decided: 27-01-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.S. BEDI, C.K. PRASAD · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2011) 1 S.C.R. 1092 
DAULAT RAM & ANR. 
v. 
CBN MANDSAUR, M.P. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 2006) 
JANUARY 27, 2011 
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND CHANDRAMAULI KR. 
PRASAD, JJ.] 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 
C - s. 8 read with s. 18 - Appellants cultivating opium under a 
licence - Recovery of undeclared opium from the field of the 
appellants - Confession by the appellants that they hacf 
withheld the opium to sell it in the market in an unauthorized 
manner - Conviction u/s. 8 read with s. 18 by courts below -
o On appeal, held: Justified - Rule 13 makes it obligatory for 
an opium producer to make a declaration to the lambardar 
as to the quantity of opium produced everyday - No evidence 
to show that the opium which had been recovered had been 
declared or accounted for before the Lambardar - However; 
E the fact that opium was buried three feet underground and far 
away from the residence of the appellants clearly shows that 
the intention was to stash away the opium for sale in an 
unauthorized way - Even though no independent witness 
supported the prosecution story, the evidence of the official 
F witness is supported by the recovery of the opium and also 
by the confessions made by the appellants that they had 
withheld the opium to sell it in the market - Narcotic Drugs · 
and Psychotropic Substances Rule, 1985 - r. 13 
Bheru /al v. State of Rajasthan RLW 2003 (2) Raj 1056 
G - referred to. 
H 
Case Law Reference: 
RLW 2003 (2) Raj 1056 
Referred to 
1092 
Para 5 
..,.. .. 
.,, 
DAULAT RAM & ANR. v. CBN MANDSAUR, M.P. 
1093 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
A 
·~-> 
No. 259 of 2006. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 20.09.2004 of the High 
Court of Madhya Pradesh ln9Q.r~J~~nch, Indore in Criminal 
Awe~~·No: 259 of 2001. 
8 
Ashok Kumar Sharma, Avinash Kumar Jain for the 
Appellants. 
'"°"'J" 
J.S. Attr(Sadhana Sandhu, Rashmi, Sushma Suri for the 
Respondent. 
c 
The following order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
1. This appeal arises out of the following facts:' 
D 
·--·~-
1.1 The appellants herein, both brothers, Daulat Ram and 
. Mangilal, sons of Hurdabai, were living with their mother at 
village Dorana. Hurdabai had been issued a licence to grow 
: opium in her land and the appellants were looking after the 
E 
cultivation on her behalf. On the 5th April, 1997, reports were 
received in the Narcotics Office that Hurdabai was not 
depositing the entire yield of opium with the Lambardar. The 
ASI CBN, Balaram PW 2, and the District Opium officer, 
Satyaveer Singh Choudhary PW 6, along with other members 
F 
of a raiding party reached the village Dorana at 2:00p.m., and 
on inquiry it was ascertained that the allegations appeared to 
be correct. The appellants were, accordingly, apprehended and 
interrogated by the ASI and during interrogation Daulat Ram 
admitted that some of the undeclared opium had been hidden 
in his field. Thereafter Mangilal appellant was also interrogated 
F 
"" 
and he made a similar statement. The raiding party then visited 
the field of Daulat Ram and after digging the pit at the place 
pointed out by him, took out a polythene bag which when 
weighed was found to contain 3kg of opium. Similarly, Mangilal 
took the officers to the place which he had identified and 
H 
1094 ·SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011) 1 S.C.R. 
A another 3 kg of opium was recovered from another pit. The 
appellants also gave their confessions Exhibits P 16 and P17 
respectively, stating therein that they had withheld the opium to 
sell it in the market in an unauthorised manner. 
8 
1.2 On the completion of the investigation, the appellants 
were charged under Section 8 read with Section 18 of the 
Narcotic Drugs and.Psychotropic Substances Act, (hereinafter 
referred to as 'the Act'). The trial court relying on the evidence 
of P.W. 1 Bhanwarilal Patwari who had identified the fields as 
C. belonging to Hurdabai and in particular the evidence of P.W. 
2, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 and also on the confessions made by 
the accused held that the case against them had been proved 
beyond doubt. The appellants were each sentenced to 10 years 
rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1 lakh with a default 
sentence. An appeal taken to the High Court too was 
D dismissed. 
2. Before us, today, Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma the learned 
Amicus Curiae for the appellants, has raised one basic 
argument. He has submitted that as per the Act and Rule 13 
E of the Narcotics Drugs & Psychotropic S

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