MOHD. ASLAM KHAN versus NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1996] 2 S.C.R. 842 · Decided: 20-02-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
MOHD. ASLAM KHAN 
v. 
NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU AND ANOTHER 
FEBRUARY 20, 1996 
[AM. AHMADI, C.J., N.P. SINGH AND 
K. VENKATASW AMI, JJ] 
Climinal Law : 
C 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 : Section 22 
read with Sections 8(c) : 66 and 67. 
' 
Contraband drugs-Possession of-Search and seizure-Proof 
of-Mandrex tablets-Seizure of-Froin premises allegedly belonging to ac-
cused-Along with agreement allegedly signed by accused in favour of 
D promoter/builder-Accused retracting his statement-Agreement neither seized 
from accused nor furnished by him-No independent evidence-Produced by 
Prosecutiort-Establishing ownership of premises-Either producing docu-
ments from Registrar's office or examining neighbours-Held : aid of Section 
66 could not be invoked--/n the circumstances retracted statements of ac-
E cused not sufficient to connect him with the premises in question-Conviction 
set aside-Customs Act 1962, Section JOB. 
F 
The appellant was convicted under Section 22 read with Section 8 
(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and 
_ sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. 
According to the prosecution, the official of Narcotic Control 
Bureau, raided the premises of the appellant - accused and seized 50,000 
Mandrex tablets contained in a maroon coloured bag along with certain 
documents. The samples of the said Mandrex tables were drawn under a 
panchnama. In the course of the interrogation, the appellant was asked 
G about the seizure of those 50.000 Mandrex_ tablets and he was said to have 
given statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 and also 
under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. 1985. In the course of the search and 
seizure of the said premises along with the contraband tablets an agree-
ment supposed to have been signed by the appellant in favour of-the 
H promotor/builder was also seized by the officials. 
842 
{ 
_ft·- ..
ASLAM KHAN v. NARCOTICS CON1ROL BUREAU 
843 
On the basis of the adduced on behalf of the prosecution, the Special A 
--
Judge came to the conclusion that the charge levelled against the appellant 
was fully established. This finding was upheld by the High Court. 
In the appeal before this Court, on behalf of the accused person it 
was contended that the prosecution had miserably failed to establish the B 
ownership and possession of the premises from which the contraband 
tablets were seized as belonging to the appellant; and that the reliance 
placed by the prosecution on the statements of the appellant obtained 
under Section 108 of the Customs Act and Section 67 of the NDPS Act 
would be of no avail as the appellant had retracted the same without loss 
of time. 
c 
On behalf of the respondent, it was contended that the agreement 
executed by the appellant found in the premises in question and recovered 
by the officials containing the signature of the appellant was sufficient to 
establish that he was the owner and in possession of the premises; that the 
prosecution had established the case beyond doubt; and that the admission D 
of the appellant during the course of interrogation under Section 67 of the 
NDPS Act was admissible in evidence and coupled with the fact of seizure 
of agreement containing the signature of the appellant, it was not open to 
the appellant to contend that prosecution had failed to establish the 
ownership of the appellant regarding the premises in question. 
E 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. In the instant case, the document namely the agreement 
has not been seized from the custody of the appellant or it has been 
furnished by him. In order to invoke the aid of Section 66 of the Narcotic F 
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 the prosecution should have 
established that the appellant is the owner and was in actual possession 
of the flat in question. [847·E] 
.. 
1.2. It is not in dispute that the appellant did not admit his signature 
G 
in the agreement in question. The prosecution did not bother to produce 
any independent evidence to establish that the appellant was the owner of 
the Oat in question by producing documents from concerned Registrar's 
office or by examining the neighbours. No statement has been made by the 
prosecut!on that inspite of the efforts· taken by them, they could not 
' 
produce the document or examine the neighbours to prove the ownership H 
844 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
of the appellant relating to the premi

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