DURAND DIDIER versus CHIEF SECRETARY, UNION TERRITORY OF GOA

Citation: [1989] 3 S.C.R. 1025 · Decided: 29-08-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. NATARAJAN, S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

; 
) ' 
DURAND DIDIER 
v. 
CHIEF SECRETARY, UNION TERRITORY OF GOA 
AUGUST 29, 1989 
[S. NATARAJAN AND S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, JJ.] 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985-Sections 
2(xiv), (xxii), 8, 18, 20, 21 and27. 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Rules, 1985: 
Schedules I, II and IIJ. 
Narcotic Drug or psychotropic substance-'Small quantity'-
What is-'For personal consumption'-Burden of proof-On whom. 
Contrabands-Seizure-Omission to send samples in sufficient 
A 
B 
c 
quantity for analysis-Effect of. 
D 
Evidence-Difference 
between 
the 
narcotic 
substances-Chemical Analyst's evidence-Value of. 
drugs 
and 
Search and seizure-Seizure of contrabands-Pancha witnesses 
residing in the same area but not in vicinity of the seizure-Admissibility 
E 
and value of evidence . . 
The appellant is a foreign national. At Colva, on seeing a police 
party on patrol he accelerated the speed of his motor cycle ignoring the 
signal given by Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police (P. W. 7) and in that 
process lost control over the vehicle and fell down. Thereafter he 
F 
immediately stood up and removed a paper wrapping from his pant 
pocket and threw it away which on verification was found to contain a 
small quantity of brown sugar. The appellant was taken to the nearby 
police post along with the motor-cycle. A hand bag attached to the 
motor-cycle was opened and examined in the presence of two pancha 
witnesses and it was found that there was brown sugar hidden in the G 
,Camera case, Ganja oil in the steel container, and opium in the shaving 
cream tube, torch light and shoe. All the substances were weighed and 
seized under a. panchnama and sample of these contrabands divided 
into three categories were sent to Chemical Analyst (PW. 6) who found 
that one sample contained 16.8% w /w of Morphine (an alkaloid 
extracted from opium), and the other sample contained a dark brown H 
1025 
-4:
1026 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989] 3 S.C.R. 
sticky substance having odour similar to that of extract of cannabis. 
~ 
A 
The quantity of the substance namely a dark brown soft mass having 
characteristic colour of opium found in the third sample was not sum-
cient to carry out further analysis. 
jl 
The appellant was consequently prosecuted for possession of pro-
•
B 
hibited drugs under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances 
~ 
Act, 1985. The Sessions Judge convicted him under Sections 21, 
20(b)(ii) and 18 of the Act and imposed a sentence of 10 years rigorous 
imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,00,000 and in default to undergo rigo-
rous imprisonment for one year. The High Court dismissed the appeal 
-
of the appellant and confirmed the sentence passed by the Trial Court .. 
c but modified the default sentence from one year to six months. 
-( 
In this appeal challenging the correctness of the conviction it was 
contended on behalf of the appellant that: (i) in the absence of any 
•
injury on the person of the appellant, the case of the prosecution that 
the appellant fell down from his vehicle is hardly acceptable (ii) the 
D pancha witnesses were not the respectable inhabitants of the locality 
therefore the seizure of the contrabands was in violation of the provi-
sions relating to search and seizure; (iii) the omission to send sufficient 
representative quantity of the contrabands for analysis affected the > 
veracity of the prosecution case; (iv) the omission to include the owner 
of the motor-cycle (PW-5) as an accused and the non-examination of the 
E person at whose instance the vehicle was lent to the appellant affected 
,?ii
the prosecution case; and (v) since the appellant was in possession of 
t°' 
these drugs or substnces in a small quantity for his personal consump-
"""
tion he was liable to be punished only under section 27(a) of the Act. 
...
Dismissing the appeal, 
·f-
F 
HELD: 1. If a person is thrown off or falls from a speeding 
vehicle he may sustain injuries either serious or simple or escape some-
times unhurt but it depends on the speed of the vehicle, the manner of 
fall, the nature of the soil and the surface of the earth etc. In the instant 
case, the evidence and other connected facts lead to the inference that 
G 
the appellant had fallen down immediately after he attempted to speed 
up the vehicle and was caught hold of by the police. Therefore it is right ·" 
that the appellant was caught by the police under the circumstances 
as put forth by the prosecution and the appellant how

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