RAM KUMAR versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF NARCOTICS

Citation: [2008] 7 S.C.R. 704 · Decided: 05-05-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2008] 7 S.C.R. 704 
RAM KUMAR 
V. 
CENTRAL BUREAU OF NARCOTICS 
(Criminal Appeal No. 800 of 2008) 
MAY 5, 2008 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.) 
Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: 
ss. 8, 21, 42, 50 & 67 - PWs 4 and 2, Superintendent 
C and Inspector in the Narcotics Department, while making 
casual inspection of a bus, recovered 'brown sugar' from 
exclusive possession of two passengers including Appellant 
- Conviction by both Trial Court and High Court - Challenge 
to - On ground that there was violation of ss. 42 and 50 and 
D further that there was discrepancy in evidence of PWs 2 and 4 
about the manner of seizure of the alleged contraband article 
- Held: The present case is a case of chance recovery of 
contraband article in a public place effected during routine 
checking - s. 42 has no application herein - A/so, Appellant 
E when examined under s. 67 admitted conscious possession 
of the contraband article - There was no retraction to this 
voluntary confession - Alleged discrepancies in testimony of 
PWs 2 and 4 were minor which did not affect credibility of 
evidence of these witnesses - The samples were duly sealed 
F and sent for examination and on receipt of the report it was 
concluded that the articles were 'brown sugar' - Conviction of 
Appellant sustained. 
According to the prosecution, PWs 4 and 2, 
respectively posted as Superintendent and Inspector in 
G the Narcotics Department, while making casual inspection 
of a bus, recovered 'brown sugar' from the exclusive 
possession of two passengers including Appellant. 
The Special 
Judge 
(Narcotics 
Drugs 
and 
H 
704 
RAM KUMAR v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF NARCOTICS 
705 
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985) convicted both the A 
accused under ss.8 and 21 of the Narcotics Drugs and 
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentenced them 
each to RI for 10 years. In appeal, High Court confirmed 
the conviction and sentence. 
The conviction of Appellant is challenged before this 8 
Court on the ground that there was violation of the 
provisions of ss. 42 and 50 of the Act and further that there 
was discrepancy in the evidence of PWs 2 and 4 about 
the manner of seizure of the alleged contraband articles. c 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The present case is a case of chance 
recovery and s.42 of the Narcotics Drugs and 
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 has no application. 
The evidence of witnesses clearly established that it was D 
a case of chance recovery in a public place effected during 
routine checking. The contraband articles were recovered 
from the exclusive possession of Appellant and the co-
accused. [Para 6] [707-E; 708-A, B] 
2. Apart from that, the Appellant was examined under E 
s.67 of the Act in which he admitted the conscious 
possession of the contraband articles. There was no 
retraction to this voluntary confession. So far as the 
alleged discrepancies in the testimony of PWs 2 and 4 
are concerned, there are minor variations which do not in 
F 
any way affect the credibility of evidence of these 
witnesses. The evidence clearly shows that prosecution 
has established the separation of samples, deposit of 
samples in the Malkhana, receipt of samples at the 
research laboratory and the examination by the experts. G 
It is the evidence of PW-2 that during search of accused 
persons brown sugar was found inside the shoes. On 
being examined by UNO Kit it was identified as brown 
sugar. The samples which were duly sealed were sent to 
factory for examination and on receipt of the report it was H 
706 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 7 S.C.R. 
A concluded that the articles were brown sugar. [Para 7) 
[708-B, C, D, E] 
.;.. 
' 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal 
Appeal No. 800 of 2008. 
B 
From the Order dated 11.3.2005 of the High Court of 
Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench at Indore in Criminal Appeal 
, 
No. 1159/1999 
Dr. Sushi! Balwada (A.C.) for the Appellant. 
C 
Sanjeev Bhardwaj Kiran Bhardwaj and B.V. Balaram Das 
for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
D 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned 
Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench 
upholding the conviction recorded by a learned Special Judge 
~ 
(NDPS Act), Indore in Special Case No.10/98 convicting the 
appellant alongwith another accused Aziz Khan for offence 
E punishable under Sections 8 and 21 of the Narcotics Drugs an

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