RIZWAN KHAN versus THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Citation: [2020] 7 S.C.R. 546 · Decided: 10-09-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
546
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 7 S.C.R.
RIZWAN KHAN
v.
THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
(Criminal Appeal No. 580 of 2020)
SEPTEMBER 10, 2020
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, R. SUBHASH REDDY AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 –
ss.20(b)(ii)(B), 20(b)(ii)(C), 42, 50, 55 – Appellant-accused along
with others was found with contraband articles in the vehicle –
Convicted u/s.20(b)(ii)(B) – Held: No error committed by both the
courts below in convicting the accused relying upon the deposition
of the police officials which is reliable and trustworthy – Compliance
of the procedure prescribed u/ss.42, 55 has also been established
and proved – It was established and proved that the samples which
were seized and sealed from the appellant were sent to FSL – Further,
to prove the case under NDPS Act, ownership of the vehicle is not
required to be established and proved – It is enough to establish
and prove that the contraband articles were found from the accused
from the vehicle purchased by the accused – Prosecution successful
in proving the case against the appellant – Evidence – Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.313.
Evidence – Of police officials/police witnesses – Conviction
based thereon –  Non-examination of independent witnesses – Effect
of – Discussed – Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The prosecution has been successful in proving
the case against the accused by examining the witnesses PW3,
PW4, PW5, PW7 and PW8. All the said witnesses are police
officials and two independent witnesses who were panchnama
witnesses had turned hostile. However, all the aforesaid police
witnesses are found to be reliable and trustworthy. All of them
were thoroughly cross-examined by the defence. There is no
allegation of any enmity between the police witnesses and the
[2020] 7 S.C.R. 546
546
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
547
accused. No such defence has been taken in the statement under
Section 313, Cr.P.C. There is no law that the evidence of police
officials, unless supported by independent evidence, is to be
discarded and/or unworthy of acceptance. Examination of
independent witnesses is not an indispensable requirement and
such non-examination is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution
case. No error was committed by both the courts below in
convicting the accused relying upon the deposition of the police
officials. [Para 8.2][554-C-D]
Surinder Kumar v. State of Punjab (2020) 2 SCC 563
– relied on.
1.2 Compliance of the procedure prescribed under Section
42 and 55 of the NDPS Act has been established and proved.
[Paras 9, 9.1][555-E-F]
1.3 To prove the case under the NDPS Act, the ownership
of the vehicle is not required to be established and proved. It is
enough to establish and prove that the contraband articles were
found from the accused from the vehicle purchased by the
accused. Ownership of the vehicle is immaterial. What is required
to be established and proved is the recovery of the contraband
articles and the commission of an offence under the NDPS Act.
Merely because the ownership of the vehicle is not established
and proved and/or the vehicle is not recovered subsequently,
trial is not vitiated, while the prosecution has been successful in
proving and establishing the recovery of the contraband articles
from the accused on the spot. [Para 11][556-E-F]
Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab (2018) 17 SCC 627 :
[2018] 9 SCR 1006; P.P. Fathima v. State of Kerala
(2003) 8 SCC 726; Baldev Singh v. State of Haryana
(2015) 17 SCC 554 : [2015] 12 SCR 969; State of
Himachal Pradesh v. Pradeep Kumar (2018) 13 SCC
808 : [2018] 2 SCR 656; Mukesh Singh v. State
(Narcotic Branch) Decision of Supreme Court dated
31.08.2020 in SLP (Criminal) Diary No. 39528/2018
– referred to.
RIZWAN KHAN v. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
548
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 7 S.C.R.
Case Law Reference
[2018] 9 SCR 1006
referred to
Para 5
(2003) 8 SCC 726
referred to
Para 7.3
[2015] 12 SCR 969
referred to
Para 7.3
[2018] 2 SCR 656
referred to
Para 7.3
(2020) 2 SCC 563
relied on
Para 8.2
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
580 of 2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.10.2018 of the High Court
of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in CRA No. 881 of 2012.
Ms. Prachi Mishra, AAG, Raj Kishor Choudhary, Shakeel Ahmed,
Anupam Bhati, Nakul Chaudhary, Ms. Malvika Raghawan, Sumeer
Sodhi, Ms. Simran Agrawal, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delive
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.