JITENDRA AND ANR. versus STATE OF M.P.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 918 · Decided: 18-09-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
JITENDRA AND ANR. 
V. 
STATE OF M.P. 
SEPTEMBER 18, 2003 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.] 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985-Sections 8, 
18 and 20-Seizure of drugs-Conviction of appellants under the Act-
Witnesses turning hostile-Investigating Officer not examined-Held : 
C Drugs seized were not produced before trial court by prosecution-No 
material/cogent evidence was placed before trial court about seizure from 
the appellants-Hence, convictions set aside-Sections 173 and 465-
Criminal Procedure Code, 197 4. 
Appellant no. 1 was standing in front of the house of one R along 
D with a scooter. Appellant permitted, on request by the Police, to search 
the dickey of the scooter. The search resulted in recovery of one 
kilogram of charas contained in five packets along with currency notes 
worth Rs. 20,000. Two samples of 100 grams each were taken out and 
sealed. Thereafter, Police searched the house of appellant no. 2, the 
E mother of appellant no. 1, and recovered one kilogram of ganja. Two 
samples of 200 grams each were taken out and sealed as per the 
panchanama. The Forensic Science Laboratory, after chemical 
examination, opined that the samples were charas and ganja 
respectively. The appellants were charged with offences under Section 
F 8 read with Sections 18 and 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic 
Substances Act, 1985. 
The trial court acquitted the appellants of the charge under 
Section 8 read with Section 18 but convicted and sentenced them for 
G offences under Section 20(b) of the Act. High Court dismissed the 
appeal of appellant no. I and partly allowed the appeal of appellant 
no. 2 by reducing the sentence of imprisonment to the period already 
undergone. 
In appeal to this Court, the appellants contended that the charas 
H and ganja seized from them were not produced at the trial; that the 
918 
JITENDRA v. ST A TE 
919 
Malkhana Moharir was not examined during the trial to prove that A 
the packets, in which the samples were sealed, had remained in 
Malkhana from the time of their receipt to the time of their dispatch 
to the Forensic Science Laboratory; that there was no material before 
the trial court to prove that the samples, which were dispatched to the 
Laboratory were actually drawn from the drugs alleged to have been B 
seized; that the High Court relied on a letter dated 14.8.1999 written 
by the Superintendent of Police to the Laboratory, which was not 
produced during the trial; and that the final report dated 3.10.1999, 
submitted under Section 173 Cr. P.C., had stated that the report of the 
Laboratory was awaited even though the report of the Laboratory was C 
dated 30.8.1999. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. The evidence to prove that charas and ganja were 
recovered from the possession of the appellants consisted of the evidence D 
of the police officers and the panch witnesses, who had turned hostile. 
Hence, there is no independent witnesses as to the recovery of the drugs 
from the possession of the appellants. The charas and ganja alleged to 
have been seized from the possession of the appellants were not even 
produced before the trial court, so as to connect it with the samples sent E 
to the Forensic Science Laboratory. There is no material produced in the 
trial, apart from the testimony of police officers, to show that the charas 
and ganja were seized from the possession of the appellants or that the 
samples sent to the Laboratory were taken from the drugs seized from 
the possession of the appellants. [922-F, G-H, 923-A) 
F 
1.2. In the trial, it was necessary for the prosecution to establish 
by cogent evidence that the alleged quantities of charas and ganja were 
seized from the possession of the appellants. The best evidence would 
have been the seized materials which ought to have been produced 
during the trial and marked as material objects. There is no explanation G 
for this failure to produce them. Mere oral evidence as to their features 
and production of panchanama does not discharge the heavy burden 
which lies on the prosecution, particularly where the offence is 
punishable with a stringent sentence under the Narcotic Drugs and 
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The Investigating Officer was also H 
920 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A not examined. Against this background, it cannot be said that despite 
the pancha witnesses having turned hostile, the non-examination of the 
I

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