DILBAGH SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2016] 7 S.C.R. 781 · Decided: 28-11-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 7 S.C.R. 781 
DILBAGH SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1096 of 2016) 
NOVEMBER 28, 2016 
[DIPAK MISRA AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.] 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, I985: ss.50, 
57 -
Applicability of - Recovery of six bags of poppy husk from 
car - Conviction by courts below - Plea of non-compliance of ss.50 
and 57 - Held: Since the contraband were recovered from inside 
the car, s.50 is not applicable -
As regards the applicability of 
s.57, both the courts below concurrently concluded that the 
Investigating Officer at the site had, after the arrest of the accused 
persons and seizure of the contraband forwarded the said 
information to his higher officer, namely, Deputy Superintendent of 
Police without any delay and that the related FIR with the necessary 
endorsements therein had reached the Jlaka Magistrate on the same 
day - There was no evidence to either contradict or decimate this 
finding based on records - In this view of the matter, the requirements 
of s.57 of the Act had been duly complied with as well. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:l. Whereas the conditions under which, the search 
as contemplated in Section 50 are limited only to the contingency 
of search of any person, Section 57 prescribes that whenever any 
person makes any arrest or seizure un!ler the Act, he would within 
48 hours next after such arrest or seizure, make a full report of 
all the particulars of such arrest or seizure to his immediate official 
superior. The contraband in the case in hand had been recovered 
from inside the car in which the petitioner and the co-accused 
were travelling at the relevant point of time and not in course of 
the search of their person. Noticeably, it had also not been the 
plea of the defence ever that the alleged seizure according to the 
accused persons had been from their person. In the contextual 
facts therefo1·e, Section 50 has no application to espouse the cause 
of the defence. [Para 13) [787-B-C, D-E] 
781 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
782 
A 
B 
c 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016) 7 S.C.R. 
2. Qua the imputation of non-adherence of the requisites 
of Section 57 of the Act, both the courts below, on an analytical 
appreciation of the evidence on record have concurrently 
concluded that the Investigating Officer at the site, had after the 
arrest of the accused persons and or seizure of the contraband 
forwarded the information with regard thereto to his higher officer, 
namely, Deputy Superintendent of Police without any delay and 
that the related FIR with the necessary endorsements therein 
had reached the Ilaka Magistrate on the same date i.e. 28.08.2007 
at 9 p.m. There is no evidence to either contradict or decimate 
this finding based on records. In this view of the matter as well, 
the assertion of non-compliance of Section 57 of the Act does not 
commend for acceptance. Having regard to the facts available, 
the requirements of Section 57 had been duly complied with as 
well. [Para 14] [787-F-H; 788-A] 
3. An appraisal of the testimony of the prosecution 
D · witnesses and in particular of PW-4 ASI and PW-5 HC, the seizure 
witnesses, fully substantiate the recovery of the contraband i.e. 
Poppy Husk from the conscious possession of the accused 
persons. That the samples were properly sampled, sealed and 
forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory through Malkhana 
E 
F 
G 
also stood established. The certificate of the Chemical Examiner, 
FSL to the effect that the seal of the samples was found intact and 
that the same tallied with the specimen seals also rules out the 
possibility of any tampering therewith. The fact that the contraband 
was recovered from the car while the same was being driven by 
one of the accused persons in the company of the other also 
authenticate the charge of their conscious possession thereof. 
The haul of six bags of Poppy Husk is substantial so much so that 
it negates even the remote possibility of the same being planted 
by the police. Furthermore no evidence with regard to bias _or 
malice against the Investigating Agency has been adduced. The 
prosecution has been able to prove the charge against the accused 
persons beyond all reasonable doubt. The Courts below have 
appreciated the materials on record in the correct legal and factual 
perspectives and the findings recorded do not merit any 
interference. [Paras 18, 19] [788-H; 789-A-E] 
Mohinder Kumar v. State, Panaji, Goa (1998) 8 SCC 
H 
655 - distinguished

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