LexKASHMIRI LAL versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2013) 3 S.C.R. 770 KASHMIR! LAL v. STATE OF HARYANA (Criminal Appeal No. 1576 of 2009) MAY 16, 2013 [DR. B. S. CHAUHAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985: ss. 18 and 50 - Seizure of contraband from tool box of scooter of accused - Conviction and sentence of 10 years RI and fine of Rs. 1 lakh - Affirmed by High Court - Held: In the instant case, non-examination of independent witnesses does 0 not affect prosecution case -- Evidence of official witnesses is reliable and absolutely trustworthy and court can act upon the same - In case of search of vehicle, s.50 is not attracted - Appeal having been filed in 1996, the 2001 amendment regarding determination of commercial or non-commercial quantity has no relevance -- Non-production of scooter in court E is also of no avail as it has been established that the scooter belonged to appellant - Conviction and sentence upheld - Evidence - Non-examination of independent witnesses - Investigation - Notification SO No. 1055(E) dated 19.10.2001. F The appellant was convicted and sentenced to 10 years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh uls 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, as the charge that 5 % kg of opium was recovered from the tool box of his scooter, was found proved. The High G Court affirmed the conviction and the sentence. Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 As far as non-examination of independent witness is concerned, it is evincible from the evidence on H 770 KASHMIRI LAL v. STATE OF HARYANA 771 record that the police officials had requested the people A present in the 'dhaba' to be witnesses, but they declined to cooperate and, in fact, did not make themselves available. That apart, there is no absolute command of law that the police officers cannot be cited as witnesses and their testimony should always be treated with suspicion. B Ordinarily, the public at large show their disinclination to come forward to become witnesses. If the testimony of the police officer is found reliable and trustworthy, the court can definitely act upon the same. In the instant case, there is no acceptable reason tc. discard the c testimony of the official witnesses which is otherwise reliable and absolutely trustworthy. [para 9] [777-C-E, G] State of U. P. v. Anil Singh 1988 Suppl. SCR 611 = 1988 Suppl. SCC 686, State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Sunil and Another 2000 (5) Suppl. SCR 144 = 2001 (1) SCC 652; and D · Ramjee Rai and Others v. State of Bihar2006 (5) Suppl. SCR 240 =20~6 (13) sec 229 - relied on. 1.2 With regard to non-compliance of s.50 of the Act, there is no dispute over the fact that the seizure had taken E place from the tool box of the scooter. When a vehicle is searched and not the person of an accused, s. 50 of the Act is not attracted. There is ample evidence on record that the scooter belongs to the appellant and the search and seizure was made in the tool box of the scooter. F Therefore, non-production of the scooter in the court is of no avail. [para 10 and 15] [778-A-B; 780-F-G] Ajmer Singh v. State of Haryana 2010 (2) SCR 785 = 2010 (3) SCC 746; Madan Lal v. State of H.P. 2003 (2) Suppl. SCR 716 = 2003 (7) SCC 465; and State of H.P. v. G Pawan Kumar 2005 (3) SCR 417 = 2005(4) SCC 350; E. Micheal Raj v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau 2008 (4) SCALE 592; Basheer Alias N.P. Basheer v. State of Kera/a 2004 (2) SCR 224 = 2004 (3) sec 609; and Nayak H 772 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 3 S.C.R. A Ramesh Chandra Keshavlal v. State of Gujarat (2004) 11 sec 399 - relied on. 1.3 So far as the contraband to be treated as non- commercial quantity, in the case at hand, the appeal was 8 pending in 1996 and, therefore, the ameliorative provision brought by way of amendment in the year 2001 would not be applicable. [para 14) [780-C-D] c D E F Case Law Reference: 1988 Suppl. SCR 611 relied on para 9 2000 (5) Suppl. SCR 144 relied on para 9 2006 (5) Suppl. SCR 240 relied on para 9 2010 (2) SCR 785 relied on para 10 2003 (2) Suppl. SCR 716 relied on para 10 2005 (3) SCR 417 relied on par~ 10 2008 (4) SCALE 592 relied on para 11 2004 (2) SCR 224 relied on para 12 (2004) 11 sec 399 relied on para 13 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1576 of 2009. From the Judgment and Order dated 31.07.2008 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Crimin
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.