MOHINDER SINGH versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2018] 10 S.C.R. 910 · Decided: 14-08-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
910
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 10 S.C.R.
MOHINDER SINGH
v.
THE STATE OF PUNJAB
(Criminal Appeal No. 2182 of 2010)
AUGUST 14, 2018
[RANJAN GOGOI, R. BANUMATHI AND
NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: s.50 –
Prosecution case was that the appellant was carrying contraband
substance in a bag – On search of bag in presence of DSP, the
substance in bag was found to be opium of 7.04 kg – Two samples
of 20 gms each were taken and sealed – Case property along with
two samples deposited in Malkhana and next day produced before
the Magistrate – Samples parcels sent to FSL and found to be
opium – Acquittal by trial court for non-compliance of s.50 of the
Act and on the ground that the order of the Magistrate did not show
that the seal of sample sent to FSL tallied with the seal of the
contraband and, thus evidence regarding such production of case
property before the Magistrate was not trustworthy – On appeal,
High Court held that recovery of contraband from a bag/attache
which the accused was carrying in his hands would not amount to
search of person and as such s.50 would not apply and further, the
case property parcels of samples and sealed samples were duly
produced before Magistrate – Based on the said finding, High Court
reversed the order of acquittal and convicted appellant u/s.18 and
sentenced him to undergo ten years imprisonment – On appeal, held:
Oral evidence of PW-3 and PW-5 as to the deposit of the contraband
seized from the accused with Malkhana is not corroborated by the
documentary evidence –  In the absence of the order of the
Magistrate showing that the contraband seized from the accused
was produced before the Magistrate, the oral evidence adduced
that the contraband was produced before the Magistrate cannot
form the basis to record the conviction – In an appeal against
acquittal, the High Court will not interfere unless there are
substantial and compelling reasons to reverse the order of acquittal –
Considering the case in hand, the findings of the trial court cannot
be said to be ‘distorted conclusions’ warranting interference – Based
910
[2018] 10 S.C.R. 910
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
911
on the oral evidence of PW-2 and PW-3, the High Court ought not
to have interfered with the order of acquittal and the conviction of
the appellant under s.18 of the Act was not sustainable.
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: s.50 –
Personal search – Carrying the contraband substance in the scooter/
bag cannot be said to be ‘by the person’ necessitating compliance
of s.50 of the Act for personal search.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.  After referring to the oral evidence of PW-2 and
PW-3, the trial court in its judgment has recorded the finding
that no order of the Magistrate to prove the production of the
contraband before the Magistrate was available on the file.  After
recording such observation, the trial court held that the oral
evidence regarding production of the case property before the
Magistrate was not trustworthy and not acceptable.  For proving
the offence under the NDPS Act, it is necessary for the
prosecution to establish the quantity of the contraband goods
allegedly seized from the possession of the accused and the best
evidence would be the court records as to the production of the
contraband before the Magistrate and deposit of the same before
the Malkhana or the document showing destruction of the
contraband. [Paras 11-12]  [915-E-F, G-H]
State of H.P. v. Pawan Kumar (2005) 4 SCC 350 : [2005]
3 SCR 417; Vijay Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh
(2013) 14 SCC 527 : [2013] 4 SCR 293 – relied on.
2.  In an appeal against acquittal, the High Court will not
interfere unless there are substantial and compelling reasons to
reverse the order of acquittal.  Considering the case in hand, the
findings of the trial court cannot be said to be ‘distorted
conclusions’ warranting interference. Based on the oral evidence
of PW-2 and PW-3, the High Court ought not to have interfered
with the order of acquittal and the conviction of the appellant
under Section 18 of the NDPS Act cannot be sustained.  [Paras
15, 16]  [916-H; 917-A; 918-C-D]
Chandrappa and Others v. State of Karnataka (2007)
4 SCC 415 : [2007] 2 SCR 630; Jugendra Singh v.
State of Uttar Pradesh (2012) 6 SCC 297 : [2012] 6
MOHINDER SINGH v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
912
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 10 S.C.R.
SCR 193; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Sajivan and
Others (2010) 1 SCC 529 

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