STATE OF HARYANA versus VIDHYA DHAR

Citation: [2002] 2 S.C.R. 151 · Decided: 01-03-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.P. SETHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF HARYANA 
A 
v. 
VIDHYA DHAR 
MARCH I, 2002 
[R.P. SETHI AND K.G. BALAKRJSHNAN, JJ.] 
B 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985-Sections 18 
and 50-Procedural illegality in investigation-Recovery of opium from 
accused-Accused given opportunity to effect the search in presence of Gazetted C 
Officer or Magistrate which was declined-Inspector took sample from opium 
and affixed his seal-Sub Inspector collected the sample-Station House Officer 
on verification of facts also affixed his own seal on the sample-Samples sent 
for chemical analysis and on basis of report charge sheet filed-Accused 
alleged tampering with the seal-Deposition .of Sub-Inspector and Station 
House Officer-No cross-examination regarding tampering with seal-Trial D 
Court convicted the accused-High Court set aside the conviction---On appeal, 
held evidence adduced by the prosecution showed no tampering with the 
seal-Hence no procedural illegality in the investigation-Acquittal set aside-
Conviction by Trial Court restored 
On suspicion, sui.:Inspector alo.ng.with some'police personnel conducted E 
. search of the respondent-accused and recovered about 2.250 kgs. of opium. 
Respondent~accused was told that if he desired, the search could be effected 
in the presence of a Gazet_ted Office~ or a Magistrate. However, he declined. 
Inspector took sample of opium and sealed with his seal Sub-Inspector tken 
collected the sample of the opium. After that respondent-accused alongwith F 
these two packets was produced before the Station House Officer, who verified 
the facts from respondent-accused and witnesses and checked· the case 
property and the sample. He affixed his own seal on both the packets 
containing sample and the residue. Thereafter sample of opium was sent for 
chemical analysis and on the basis of the report, charge-sheet was tiled against 
the respondent-accused. Trial Court rejected the contention of the respondent- G 
accused that there was tampering with the seal affixed on the packet 
containing the sample and held him guilty. However, High Court, on the basis 
. of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, acquitted the respondent-accused 
holding that there was tampering of the seal and the respondent-accused was 
entitled to benefit of doubt. Hence the present appeal. 
H 
151 
152 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Appellant-State contended that there was no tampering with the seal 
placed on the packet of opium sample collected and the evidence of the 
prosecution is very clear. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
B 
HELD : 1.1. On perusal of the evidence of prosecution witnesses, no 
defect can be perceived and it clearly shows that seal put on sample packet 
was found intact since Sub-Inspector did not say that the packet of the sample 
was opened and fresh seal was put thereon. Further, in the cross-examination 
of Station House Officer by the respondent's Counsel it was not suggested to 
him whether the seal put up by the Sub-Inspector was found tampered or 
C not. In fact there was no cross-examination regarding the tampering of the 
seal. All that he deposed was that he checked and verified the facts and then 
affixed his seal on the sample as well as on the rest of the opium recovered 
from the respondent-accused. [155-B; 154-F-H; 155-A-B] 
D 
1.2. The prosecution successfully proved that 2 kilograms and 250 grams 
of opium was recovered from the respondent-accused and, therefore, there 
was no procedural illegality in the investigation. The finding of the High Court 
that there was tampering with the seal put by the investigating officer, and 
so the respondent was not entitled to get benefit thereof was without any basis 
since High Court did not appreciate !he evidence adduced by the prosecution 
E in the correct perspective. (155-C-D; 155-B-C] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
1893 of 1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.4.96 of the Punjab and Haryana 
F High Court in Crl. A.P. No. 366-SB/95. 
G 
J.P. Dhanda, Dhon Singh Nagar, K.P. Singh and Ms. Raj Rani Dhanda, 
Advocates for the Appellant. 
Vishal Malik and Mr. R.C. Kohli for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, J. This appeal is preferred by the State of 
Haryana challenging the judgment ,and order passed by the learned S~ngle 
Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana reversing conviction of the 
H respondent, Vidhya Dhar, under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs a

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