JEET RAM versus THE NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU, CHANDIGARH

Citation: [2020] 7 S.C.R. 558 · Decided: 15-09-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 10 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
558
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 7 S.C.R.
[2020] 7 S.C.R. 558
558
JEET RAM
v.
THE NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU, CHANDIGARH
(Criminal Appeal No.688 of 2013)
SEPTEMBER 15, 2020
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, R. SUBHASH REDDY AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – ss.20,
50 and 54 – Appellant was charged u/s.20 – Acquitted by trial court
– Convicted by High Court – On appeal, held: Findings recorded
by trial court are contrary to the evidence on record – s.50 is
applicable only in case of personal search – No basis for the findings
recorded by trial court that there was non-compliance of provision
u/s.50 – Depositions of prosecution witnesses are trustworthy and
cannot be said to be unnatural and improbable – No suggestion of
tampering of the samples was put either to PW-1 or PW-2 – It is
always open to the appellate courts to reappreciate the evidence,
on which the order of acquittal is founded and are vested with the
powers to review and come to their own conclusion – Further,
appellant was on the counter of the dhaba constructed on the land
owned by his wife near the temple and charas was found in the
counter of the dhaba in a gunny bag – He not only had direct
physical control over charas, he had the knowledge of its presence
and character – Onus was on him to explain the possession and in
absence of the same being discharged, presumption u/s.54 also will
kick in – Judgment of High Court does not suffer from any infirmity
– However, on facts the sentence is reduced from 15 years to 10
years – Evidence – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.313 .
Criminal Trial – Appeal against acquittal – Power of appellate
courts – Discussed.
Words & Expressions –”possession” – Meaning of, in the
context of 1985 Act – Discussed – Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
559
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The findings recorded by the trial court are
contrary to evidence on record and view taken by the trial court
was not possible at all, as such the High Court rightly interfered
with the same and recorded its own findings to convict the
appellant. Section 50 of the NDPS Act is applicable only in the
case of personal search, as such, there is no basis for the findings
recorded by the trial court that there was non-compliance of
provision under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The depositions of
PW-4; PW-3; PW-1 and PW-2 are consistent and trustworthy and
cannot be said to be unnatural and improbable. There was no
suggestion of tampering either put to PW-1 or to PW-2. It is always
open to the appellate court to reappreciate the evidence, on which
the order of acquittal is founded, and appellate courts are vested
with the powers to review and come to their own conclusion. The
appellant was on the counter of the dhaba which was constructed
on the land owned by his wife near the temple and the charas was
found in the counter of the dhaba in a gunny bag. Accused not
only had direct physical control over charas, he had the knowledge
of its presence and character. In the case of Mohan Lal this Court
had held that a functional and flexible approach in defining and
understanding possession as a concept has to be adopted and
the word has to be understood keeping in mind the purpose and
object of the enactment. No defence witness has deposed to the
chain of events, as has been stated by the appellant in the
statement under Section 313, Cr.PC. Where accused offers false
answers in examination under Section 313 Cr.PC, same also can
be used against him. Further onus was on the appellant to explain
the possession and in absence of the same being discharged,
presumption under Section 54 of the NDPS Act also will kick in.
The judgment of the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity
so as to interfere with the judgment of conviction. Having regard
to peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the
fact that the incident occurred in the year 2001 and as the appellant
claimed to be a priest in the temple, who is now aged about 65
years, the sentence awarded on the appellant is reduced to a
period of 10 (ten) years, while maintaining the conviction and the
penalty as imposed by the High Court. [Paras 10-13][567-C-D;
568-C, G; 570-G-H; 571-A-F]
JEET RAM v. THE NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU,
CHANDIGARH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
560
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 7 S.C.R.
Sanwat Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan [1961] 3
SCR 120; Damodarprasad Chandrikaprasad v. State
of Maharashtra

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