LexMOHINDER versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2013] 2 S.C.R. 555 MOHINDER v. STATE OF HARYANA (Criminal Appeal No. 1564 of 2008) APRIL 8, 2013 [P. SATHASIVAM AND M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.] NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985: ss. 18 and· 54 - Accused carrying a tin containing 3 ~ kg. opium - Conviction and sentence of 10 years Rf with a fine of Rs. 1 /akh awarded by trial court affirmed by High Court A B c - Held: In the light of oral and documentary evidence and in view of s. 54 of the Act and in the absence of any evidence 0 from the accused discharging the presumption as to the possession of the contraband, there is no reason to interfere with conviction and the sentence. The accused-appellant was apprehended with a tin suspected to contain contraband. He was produced before DSP (PW-5). The tin contained 3 Ya kg. of opium. The trial court convicted the appellant u/s 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and sentenced him to 10 years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh. The High Court affirmed the conviction and the sentence. Dismissing the appeal, the Court E F HELD: 1.1 The prosecution is supported by the evidence of PWs-1, 5 and 6 apart from the evidence G produced on record through PWs 2 and 4. Head Constable (PW-1) and 1.0. (PW-6) explained the manner in which they had seen the appellant carrying a tin, 555 H 556 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 2 S.C.R. A interception and seizure of the tin containing opium. Immediately after the message, within 10 minutes DSP (PW-5) had reached the scene and 3 Yz kgs of opium was recovered from the tin held by the appellant in his hand. Even though the only independent witness (PW-3) who B stood as a witness for recovery has not supported the prosecution and was declared hostile, however, he did not deny the existence of his signature on Ext.PA. [para 7] [559-G-H; 560-A-C] 1 C 1.2 Regarding the absence of evidence as to conscious possession, as rightly observed by the High Court, once the appellant was asked by the court that he was carrying a tin in his hand and opium was recovered therefrom, the aspect of conscious possession of the contraband is presumed and in the absence of any contra D evidence, there is no reason to disbelieve the prosecution version. [para 11] (561-A-C] 1.3 In the light of the materials placed by the prosecution in the form of oral and documentary E evidence and in view of s. 54 of the Act and in the absence of any evidence from the accused discharging the presumption as to the possession of the contraband, this Court is in entire agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the courts below. [para 12] [561-D-E] F 1.4 As regards reduction of sentence, it is not in dispute that possession of 3 Yz kgs of opium involves commercial quantity and, therefore, in terms of sub-s. (b) of s.18, imprisonment shall not be less than 10 years. Admittedly, there is no enabling provision to the court for G reduction of sentence by giving special or adequate reasons in the statute, particularly, in s.18. [para 13] [561-· E-F] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal H No. 1564 of 2008. MOHINDER v. STATE OF HARYANA 557 From the Judgment and Order dated 04.07.2007 of the A High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 72-SB of 1994. Shubhashis R. Soren, Delhi Law Chambers for the Appellant. Kamal Mohan Gupta, Mohd. Zahid Hussain, Sanjeev Kumar for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 8 P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. This appeal has been filed against C the final judgment and order dated 04.07.2007 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 72-SB of 1994 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant herein and confirmed the order dated 05.02.1994 passed by the Court of Additional D Sessions Judge, Sirsa in Sessions Case No. 11 of 1993 convicting him under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short 'the Act') and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, in default, to E further undergo RI for a period of two years. 2. Brief facts: (a} According to the prosecution, on 23.08.1991 at about 1.30 p.m., S.l/SHO Dalbir Singh (PW-6), who was then posted F at P.S. Ellenabad was present at Chowki of Mamera Khurd along with Head Constable Jagdish Rai (PW-1} and Constables Prat
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.