OM PRAKASH @ BABA versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [2009] 14 S.C.R. 289 · Decided: 25-08-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.S. BEDI, AFTAB ALAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

- " 
[2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 289 
OM PRAKASH @ BABA 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
(Criminal Appeal No. 575 of 2009) 
AUGUST 25, 2009 
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.] 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 
- Recovery of huge quantity of charas, opium and ganja from 
A 
B 
a house stated to be in possession of accused - Conviction 
C 
by trial court:--- Affirmed by High Court - Held: A bare perusal 
of the evidence would reveal that the ownership and 
possession of the house and the place of recovery is 
uncertain - As a matter of fact PW-3 has categorically stated 
that the house from where the recovery had been made 
D 
belonged to a different person and not to the accused - Even 
assuming that the house did belong to the accused and was 
in his possession, the prosecution was further required to show 
that the accused had exclusive possession of the contraband, 
as a very large number of persons including the accused and E 
five of his brothers, their children and their parents were living 
therein - There is no evidence on record to prove accused's 
ownership and exclusive possession of the premises and the 
contraband in question - Judgments of courts below set aside 
- Accused acquitted - Evidence. 
Mohd. Alam Khan vs. Narcotic Control Bureau and 
another AIR (1996) SC 3033, relied on 
Case Law Reference: 
AIR (1996) SC 3033 
relied on 
para 5 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 575 of 2009. 
289 
F 
G 
H 
290 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A 
From the Judgment & Order dated 21.8.2006 of the High 
,, _. 
Court of Judicature at Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench in Criminal 
Appeal No. 640 of 2001. 
K.S. Bhati, Aishwarya Bhati, Sweta Rani, Rekha Giri and 
B 
Himanshu Singh for the Appellants. 
\ 
Dr. Manish Sighvi and Milind Kumar for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered by 
1, 
c 
ORDER 
The appellant was convicted under Sections 8/18, 8/ 
20(B)(ii) and 8/20(B)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs Psychotropic 
Substances Act and sentenced to 10 years R.I. and fine of 
I 
Rs.1,00,000/- and in default thereof to undergo R.I. For two 
"1' 
~ 
D years. He is before us by way of special leave. 
The prosecution story is as under: 
On 11th September, 1999 at about 7.00 a.m., PW.11 Ram 
E Chander, SHO, Kotwali Fatehpur and several other police 
officials raided the house allegedly belonging to the appellant 
to arrest Pankaj his son in some criminal matter, and as they 
~ .. 
approached his residence, they saw the appellant who was 
present attempting to run away. He was however apprehended 
F 
and the house entered and searched and a huge quantity of 
Charas, opium and Gaanja were recovered from under a 
mattress in a newly constructed room. The S.H.0. sent 
information to the Superintendent of police, Seekar and 
completed the other formalities relating to the ·. search & 
seizure. Several independent witnesses were also called to 
G countersign the search memos. The contraband recovered was 
sent to the Malkhana and thereafter for analysis to the 
r _,,. 
Laboratory and a report was duly received. On completion of 
the investigation the appellant was charged for the offences 
above-mentioned and as he pleaded innocence, he was 
H brought to trial. 
- " -
OM PRAKASH@ BABA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 291 
The prosecution in support of its case examined 14 A 
witnesses in all; the primary ones being PW.3 and 13, said to 
be independent witnesses to the search and seizure, PW.12 
an Engineer from the Department of Telecommunication and 
PW. 14 from the Electricity Department to identify the house as 
belonging to the appellant, and the investigating officer, PW.11 
B 
Ram Chander. The trial Court recorded a finding that the 
ownership and possession of the contraband in question had 
been proved beyond 
doubt, in the light of the fact that the 
witnesses had deposed that the recovery had been made from 
the house belonging to and in possession of the appellant and c 
that the samples of the contraband had been properly sealed 
and kept in proper custody and having held as above, convicted 
and sentenced the appellant. An appeal taken to the High Court 
by the appellant did not succeed. The matter is now before us 
by special leave. 
D 
At the very outset Mr. Bhatti, the learned counsel for the 
appellant, has pointed out that the appellant had been arrested 
on 11th September, 1999 and as he had not Obeen bailed out 
at any stage, he had almost completed the period
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.