KHET SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [2002] 2 S.C.R. 598 · Decided: 20-03-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.P. SETHI

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
KHET SINGH 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA 
MARCH 20, :2002 
B 
[R.P. SETHI AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.] 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: Section 50. 
~ 
Contraband article-Search and seizure of-Held: Search and seizure 
c of contraband article are to be effected in accordance with the NDPS Act and 
the Rules and guidelines framed thereunder-If there is any violations of these 
' 
~ 
guidelines, courts would take a serious view and the benefit would be extended 
to the accused. 
D 
Contraband article-Search and seizure of-Seizure Mahazar-
Preparation of-Held: Seizure mahazar should be prepared at the spot itself 
from where the contraband article is recovered-However, if the seizure 
mahazar cannot be prepared at the spot itself, it can be prepared at a later 
stage provided there are justifiable and reasonable grounds to do so. 
'Jo. 
E 
Evidence Act, 1872: 
Section 5-Relevancy of facts-Illegal evidence-Admissibility of-Held: 
Such evidence will not become inadmissible-But court should consider all 
the circumstances to see if any serious prejudice is caused to the accused. If 
such evidence is in complete defiance of law and there is a possibility of 
F tampering with such evidence, it is not liable to be admissible. 
The appellant was convicted and sentenced under Sections 17, 18, and 
21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The High 
Court upheld the conviction and sentence. Hence this appeal. 
G 
According to the prosecution, the appellant was found sitting in a truck 
• 
with a cloth basket in his hand. A polythene bag was found in the basket which 
contained some black substance. The appellant was brought to the Office of 
,I. 
the Customs where the said black substance was seized, samples were taken 
from it and were sealed. ~n chemical examination it was revealed that the 
H 
samples were opium. 
• 
598 
... 
~ 
, ,, 
• 
' -
' 
KHET SINGH v. U.O.l. 
599 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the police officer did A 
not prepare the seizure mahazar at the spot and thereby violated provisions 
of the NDPS Act; that there was delay in depositing the seized drug in the 
godown; and, therefore, the evidence obtained by such illegal seizure was 
inadmissible. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: l. It is true that the search and seizure of contraband article is 
a serious aspect in the matter of investigation related to offences under the 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The NDPS Act and 
the Rules framed thereunder have laid down a detailed procedure and 
guideline as to the manner in which search and seizure are to be effected. If 
there is any violation of these guidelines, Court would take a serious view 
and the benefit would be extended to the accused. The offences under the 
NDPS Act are grave in nature and the minimum punishment prescribed 
under the Statute is incarceration for a long period. As the possession of any 
narcotic drugs or psychotropic substance by itself is made punishable under 
the Act, the seizure of the article from the appellant is of vital importance. 
[602-D] 
2. It is true that when a contraband article is seized durihg investigation 
or search, a seizure mahazar should be prepared at the spot in accordance 
with law. There may, however, be circumstances in which it would not have 
been possible for the officer to prepare the mahazar at the spot, as it may be 
a chance recovery and the officer may not have the facility to prepare a seizure 
mahazar at the spot itself. If the seizure is effected at the place where there 
are no witnesses and there is no facility for weighing the contraband article 
or other requisite facilities are lacking, the officer can prepare the seizure 
mahazar at a later stage as and when the facilities are available, provided 
there are justifiable and reasonable grounds to do so. In that event, where 
the seizure mahazar is prepared at a later stage, the officer should indicates 
his reasons as to why he had not prepared the mahazar at the spot of recovery. 
If there is inordinate delay in preparing the seizure mahazar, that may give 
an opportunity to tamper with the contraband article allegedly seized from 
the accused. There may also be allegations that the article seized was by itself 
substituted and some other items were planted to falsely implicate the accused. 
To avoid these suspicious circumstances and to have a fair procedure in 
respect of search and seizure, it is always d

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