PON ADITHAN versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU, MADRAS/. I

Citation: [1999] 3 S.C.R. 897 · Decided: 16-07-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.T. NANAVATI · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

PON ADITHAN 
A 
v. 
I 
DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU, MADRAS/. 
JULY 16, 1999 
[G.T. NANAVATI AND N.S. HEGDE, JJ.] 
B 
Criminal Law : 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985-Section 
50(1)-Contraband article-Search and seizure of-Right of accused-To be C 
searched in the presence of gazetted officer or a Magistrate-Intelligence 
Officer, who searched the accused, deposed about due compliance with 
S.50(1)-However, no independent evidence or other supportive documentary 
evidence-Held: In the circumstances of the case, oral evidence of Intelligence 
Officer sufficient for Proving due compliance with S. 50(1)-Subsequent 
involvement of Intelligence Officer in a case under the Act, inconsequential. D 
Section 8(c) and 21-Accused found in· possession of heroin without 
valid permit-Two samples of seized heroin were prepared by the court 
assistant in presence of Magistrate-Samples Properly packed, sealed and 
sent to chemical analyst who found seal intact-Inconsistency in the evidence E 
of chemical analyst and court assistant as regards weight of samples-Held, 
Such inconsistency does not mean sample examined by chemical analyst was 
not heroinseized 
Evidence Act, 1872, Section 24. 
Confessional statement-Made by accused-While in custody of 
Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Intelligence Bureau-No complaint of threat 
and pressure made by accused when produced before Magistrate on the next 
day-No complaint thereafter till statement recorded under S. 313 Cr.PC.-
Voluntary nature-Held, In the circumstances of the case, accused made 
F 
confessional statement voluntarily. 
G 
The appellant was convicted under Section 8(c) read with Section 21 
of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The High 
Court confirmed the conviction. Hence this appeal. 
According to the prosecution, the appellant was found in possession of H 
897 
898 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1999] 3 S.C.R. 
A ISO gms of heroin without a valid permit. At the trial, the evidence of PW-
1, Intelligence Officer in the Narcotics Intelligence Bureau, who had searched 
and arrested the appellant, was led. The court assistant prepared two samples 
of the seized heroin in presence of the Magistrate. One sample was properly 
packed, sealed and sent to the chemical analyst who found the seal to be 
B intact. The appellant had made a confessional statement before PW-1 
corroborating her evidence. 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the mandatory 
requirements ofS. 50(1) of the Act were not complied with; that PW-1 could 
not be regarded as a reliable witness since she was subsequently involved 
C in a case under the Act; that oral evidence of PW-1 was not sufficient to 
establish compliance of S. 50(1), that the confessional statement of the 
appellant was made under threat and pressure and that there was inconsistency 
in the evidence of the court assistant and chemical analyst as regards the 
weight of the seized heroin. 
D 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
/ 
HELD : 1. It cannot be' laid down as a proposition of law that in the 
absence of independent evidence or any other supporting documentary evidence, 
oral evidence, of a witness conducting the search cannot be regarded as 
sufficient for establishing compliance with the requirement of Section 50(1) 
E of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Moreover, in 
this case, the confessional statement of the appellant corroborates the evidence 
of PW-1. The subsequent involvement of PW-1, the Intelligence Officer, 
Narcotics Intelligence Bureau, in a case under the Act cannot affect her 
evidence in this case. (901-G-H; 902-A; 900-G] 
F 
T.P. Razakv. State of Kera/a, (1995] Supp. 4 SCC 256, held inapplicable. 
2. The confessional statement came to be recorded while the appellant 
was in the custody of PW-1. But that by itself cannot be regarded as sufficient 
to hold that the confessional statement was made by the appellant under 
G pressure of compulsion. No i:omplaint was made by the appellant when he was 
produced before the Magistrate on the next day nor had he made any complaint 
thereafter till his statement came to be recorded under Section 313 of the 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. It was only during the trial that a suggestion 
was made to PW-1 ahd subsequently when the appellant gave a statement 
under Section 313 Cr. P.C. he stated that he gave the confessional statement 
H under threat and pressure. Even while giving his statement und

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