LexGIAN CHAND & ORS. versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2013) 10 S.C.R. 728 GIAN CHAND & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA (Criminal Appeal No. 2302 of 2010) JULY 23, 2013 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND S.A. BOBDE, JJ.] Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - ss. 15, 20, 35 & 54 - Accused-appellants found carrying ten C bags of contraband in a vehicle - Convicted by Courts below u/s. 15 - Justification - Held: Justified - Overwhelming evidence on record to prove that the seizure of ten bags had actually been made from the appellants - Since appellants were found in possession of contraband article, they were presumed to o have committed the· offence until the contrary was proved - Burden was on the appellants to establish that they had no · knowledge of the same - Appellants miserably failed to rebut the statutory presumption - They could not point out what prejudice was caused to them if the fact of "conscious E possession" was not put to them while recording their statements u/s.313 CrPC - Mere non-joining of independent witness did not cast doubt on the version forwarded by the prosecution since no reason on record to falsely implicate the appellants - On facts, at the time of the incident some F villagers had gathered there - The Investigating Officer in his cross-examination made it clear that in spite of his best persuasion, none of them were willing to become witness and therefore, he could not examine any independent witness - Further, every official act by the police is presumed t6 have been regularly performed - Evidence Act, 1872 - ss.106 and G 114 - Maxims - "omnia praesumuntur rite it dowee probetur in contrarium solenniter esse acta". The accused-appellants were allegedly found travelling in a jeep at odd hours in the night and carrying H 728 GIAN CHAND & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA 729 contraband material i.e. 10 bags containing 41 kg poppy A husk each. The trial court convicted the appellants under Section 15 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentenced them to undergo RI for a pe.riod of 10 years each. The conviction and sentenced was affirmed by the High Court. B The appellants challenged their conviction before this Court on grounds: 1) that the prosecution failed to prove that the appellants were in "conscious possession" of the contraband and this incriminating C circumstance was not put to the appellants while recording their statements under Section 313 CrPC and 2) that no independent witness was examined or involved in preparation of the panchnama of the recovered substances. Dismissing the appeal, the Court D HELD: 1.1. The appellants abandoned the vehicle (jeep) just after it dashed against the wall and made a desperate attempt to escape but were apprehended by E the police party. The Trial Court examined the matter elaborately and after appreciating the evidence of the witnesses, came to the conclusion that there were no discrepancies in the statements of the three officials, i.e. prosecution witnesses. Their statements inspired F tremendous confidence and thus, there was no reason for the court to discard the testimony of the official witnesses. Grievance had also been ·raised before the Trial Court that the chit carrying contents of case property was not available on the bags. However, this did not give G any benefit to the accused as there was overwhelming evidence on record to prove that the seizure of ten bags had actually been made from the accused. Further the contents of the samples sent for chemical analysis gave positive results on analysis in the laboratory. Moreover, H 730 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 10 S.C.R. A the defence did not put any question to the Investigating Officer in his cross-examination in respect of missing chits from the bags containing the case property/ contraband articles. Thus, no grievance could be raised by the appellants in this regard. (Paras 7, 12] [737-H; 738- B A-D; 741-G] 1.2. From the conjoint reading of the provisions of Section 35 and 54 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, it becomes clear that c if the accused is found to be in possession of the contraband article, he is presumed to have committed the offence under the relevant provisions of the Act until ttie contrary is proved. According to Section 35 of the Act, the court shall presume the existence of mental state for 0 the commission of an offence and it is for the accused to prove otherwise. Thus, once
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.