DHARAMPAL SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2010] 10 S.C.R. 1160 · Decided: 09-09-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.S. BEDI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

_, 
A 
B 
[2010] 10 S.C.R. 1160 
DHARAMPAL SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1479 of 2008) 
SEPTEMBER 09, 2010 
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND CHANDRAMAULI KR. 
PRASAD, JJ.] 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 
C - ss. 18, 35 and 54 -
Punishment for contravention in relation 
to opium poppy and opium - Factum of 'conscious possession' 
- Held: Under s. 18, possession has to be conscious 
possession - Initial burden of proof of possession, lies on 
prosecution and once it is discharged legal burden shifts on 
D accused - Once possession is established accused, who 
claims that it was not a conscious possession, has to establish 
it because it is within his special knowledge - Possession is a 
mental stqte and s. 35 gives statutory recognition to culpable 
mental state - Once possession is established, court can 
E presume that accused had culpable mental state and have 
committed the offence - On facts, Conviction and sentence of 
accused and co-accused uls. 18 by High Court, does not call 
for interference - Vehicle driven by accused and occupied by 
co-accused, from which opium was recovered was not a public 
F transport vehicle - Circumstances lead to conclusion that 
accused were in conscious possession - Circumstances 
appearing against them were put to them in their statement ul 
s. 313 Cr.P. C. - Mere absence of independent witness at the 
time of search and seizure would not render the prosecution 
G case unreliable - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 313. 
The Station House Officer-PW3 along with other 
police personnel intercepted the car driven by the 
appellant 'OS'. The appellant-'MS' was sitting by the side 
of 'OS' on the front seat. A gunny bag containing opium, 
H 
1160 
DHARAMPAL $1NGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 
1161 
weighing 65 kilograms was found in the dicky of the car. 
A 
The sample of 100 grams was taken, kept in a sealed cover 
and sent to the Chemical Examiner for examination. It was 
found to be opium. The appellants were charge-sheeted 
under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic 
Substances Act, 1983. The trial court ~cquitted the 
B 
appellants of the charge levelled against them since the 
prosecution failed to prove the compliance of Section 50 
of the Act. The High Court held that the provisions of 
Section 50 of the Act was not applicable and set aside the 
order of acquittal. The appellants were convicted for the c 
offence under Section 18 of the Act and sentenced to 
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years 
each. Therefore, the appellants filed the instant appeals. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 As regard the factum of 'conscious 
possession', appellant-'DS' was found driving the car 
whereas appellant-'MS' was travelling with him and from 
D 
the dicky of the car 65 kilograms of opium was recovered. 
The vehicle driven by the appellant 'OS' and occupied by 
E 
the appellant 'MS' is not a public transport vehicle. To bring 
the offence within the mischief of Section 18 of the Narcotic 
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 possession 
has to be conscious possession. The initial burden of proof 
of possession lies on prosecution and once it is 
F 
discharged legal burden would shift on accused. The 
standard of proof expected from the prosecution is to 
prove possession beyond all reasonable doubt but what 
is required to prove innocence by the accused would be 
preponderance of probability. Once the plea of the accused G 
is found probable, discharge of initial burden by the 
prosecution will not nail him with offence. Offences under 
the Act being more serious in nature higher degree of proof 
is required to convict an accused. The expression 
possession is not capable of precise and completely 
H 
1162 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
logical definition of universal application in context of all 
the statutes. Possession is a polymorphous word and 
cannot be uniformly applied, it assumes different colour 
in different context. In the context of Section 18 of the Act 
once possession is established the accused, who claims 
B 
that it was not a conscious possession has to establish it 
because it is within his special knowledge. Section 54 of 
the Act raises presumption from possession of illicit 
articles. [Para 9] [1170-G-H; 1171-A-E] 
1.2. From a plain reading of Section 54 of the Act, it is 
C evident that it creates a legal fiction and presumes the 
person in possession of illicit articles to ha

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