STATE OF PUNJAB versus LAKHWINDER SINGH & ANR.

Citation: [2010] 4 S.C.R. 92 · Decided: 05-04-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 4 S.C.R. 92 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
v. 
LAKHWINDER SINGH & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 2009) 
APRIL 5, 2010 
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.] 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 
- s. 15 - Punishment for contravention in relation to poppy 
C 
st~aw - Respondents found in possession of 35 bags of poppy 
husk - Conviction u/s. 15 by trial court - Set aside by High 
Court - On appeal, held: Evidence clearly established that 
respondents were in conscious possession of contraband 
goods - Failure of defence to prove that seizure and seal put 
o in the samples were ever tampered with before it was 
examined by Chemical Examiner - Delay of seven days in 
sending samples to the examinernot fatal since the seal was 
found intact at the time of examination - Thus, order of trial 
court restored. 
E 
The question which arose for consideration in this 
appeal was whether the High Court was justified in 
acquitting the respondents of the charge uls. 15 of the 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 
by setting aside the order of conviction and sentence 
F passed by the trial court. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and 
G Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 makes possession 
of contraband articles an offence. Section 15 in Chapter 
IV of the Act relates to the offence of possession of poppy 
straw. [Para 11] [100-A-B] 
H 
92 
STATE OF PUNJAB v. LAKHWINDER SINGH & ANR. 
93 
2.1. Evidence was led by the prosecution to establish 
A 
that the respondents were found sitting on the said bags 
of poppy husk. It was also stated by the Sub-Inspector 
as also the Assistant Sub-Inspector that the presence of 
the accused respondents at such an early hour, i.e., 8.00 
a.m. near a religious place with such large number of B 
bags and their sitting on them and on seeing the police 
party their conduct of trying to hide themselves behind 
the bags prove and establish that they were in possession 
of the said bags. The very fact that they tried to hide 
themselves behind the bags made the police party c 
suspicious about the contents of the bags which led to 
a search of the said bags and on search being carried 
out in accordance with law, the said suspicion that the 
bags contained contraband was confirmed. [Para 14) 
[100-F-H; 101-A] 
D 
2.2. The respondents, during the trial, could not give 
any satisfactory reply as to how and why they came from 
place H and were found sitting on bags of poppy husk. 
Their subsequent conduct of hiding behind the bags also 
shows their guilty mind. [Para 15) [101-8) 
E 
2.3. In the memos prepared by the Investigating 
Officer, it was clearly stated that the contraband was 
contained in the bags which were kept in the possession 
F 
of the respondents. There were separate memos 
prepared and each one of them is signed by the two 
respondents respectively and separately. The said 
documents, therefore, clearly establish that the 
respondents were in possessi,on of the said contraband. 
The evidence adduced by both the Sub-Inspectors as 
also by the Assistant Sub-Inspector examined as PW-3 
G 
and PW-4 also prove and establish that both the 
respondents were in conscious possession of the 
contraband goods. [Para 16) [101-C-E) 
lnder Sain v. State of Punjab (1973) 2 SCC 372; Madan 
H 
94 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 4 S.C.R. 
A Lal and Anr. v. State of H.P. (2003) 7 SCC 465; Gunwantla/ 
v. State of M.P. (1972) 2 sec 194, relied on. 
3. Regarding the seizure of the contraband goods, 
the discrepancies pointed out by the High Court are very 
minor and they are not very material. The prosecution 
8 has been able to establish and prove that the said bags 
which were 35 in number contained poppy husk and 
accordingly the same were seized after taking samples 
therefrom which were properly sealed. The defence has 
not been able to prove that the said seizure and seal put 
C in the samples were in any manner tampered with before 
it was examined by the Chemical Examiner, There was 
merely a delay of about seven days in sending the 
samples to the Foren~ic Examiner and it is not proved as 
to how the said delay bf seven days has affected the said 
D examination when it could not be proved that the seal of 
the sample was in any manner tampered with. The seal 
having been found intact at the time of the examination 
by the Chemical Examiner and the said fact having been 
recorded in his report, a mere observation by th

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