SUMIT TOMAR versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2012] 11 S.C.R. 404 · Decided: 19-10-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2012] 11 S.C.R. 404 
SUMITTOMAR 
v. 
THE STATE OF PUNJAB 
(Criminal Appeal Nos.1690-1691 of 2012) 
OCTOBER 19, 2012 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.] 
Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 -
s.15 - Search and seizure - Independent witness - Non-
e examination of - Effect - Appellant allegedly found driving a 
car loaded with bags of contraband (poppy straw) - Convicted 
on the basis of evidence of official witnesses - Conviction 
challenged on the ground that 'K', an independent witness was 
not examined - Held: In a case of this nature, it is better if 
D the prosecution examines at least one independent witness 
to corroborate its case - However, in absence of any such 
witness, if the statements of police officers/official witnesses 
are reliable and no animosity is established against them by 
the accused, conviction based on such statements cannot be 
E faulted with - In the instant case 'K' had witnessed the 
recovery and the prosecution had taken necessary steps to 
summon him for examination, but he did not appear -
Besides, no animosity was established on the part of the 
official witnesses by the accused in defence - Conviction of 
F appellant accordingly affirmed in view of the evidence of the 
official witnesses; the owner of the car involved in the offence 
i.e. PW2 and the FSL report - Further, since 70 kgs. of poppy 
straw was involved which was more than commercial quantity, 
the Special Judge rightly imposed the minimum sentence (RI 
G of 10 years) and fire in terms of s.15(c) of the Act. 
H 
Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 -
s. 15 - Search and seizure - Taking out of samples -
Procedure - Appellant allegedly found driving a car loaded 
404 
SUMIT TOMAR v. STATE OF PUNJAB 
405 
with two bags of contraband (poppy straw) and thereafter A 
convicted - Conviction challenged on the ground that after 
the alleged seizure of contraband in two separate bags, there 
was no need for the officers to mix both and then take out two 
samples, and this was an irregularity which went against the 
prosecution case - Held:S.15 of the Act speaks about B 
punishment for contravention in relation to poppy straw -
Merely because different punishments have been prescribed 
therein depending on the quantity of contraband, mixing of 
the said two bags did not cause any prejudice to the appellant 
- Even after taking two samples of 250 grams each, the c 
quantity of remaining contraband came to 69.50 kgs which 
was more than commercial quantity - Plea that the police 
should have taken two samples each from the two bags 
without mixing, not tenable. 
According to the prosecution, a police party found D 
the appellant driving a car in which two bags of 
contraband were loaded. The police officials mixed the 
contents of both the bags and thereafter two samples of 
250 gms. each were taken out. The samples were sent to 
the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for examination. E 
On the same day, FIR was lodged by the police against 
the appellant and another accused under Sections 8, 15, 
60, and 61 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic 
Substances, Act, 1985. During the pendency of the case, 
the other accused died. The Special Court convicted the F 
appellant under Section 15 of the NDPS Act and 
sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for 
10 years. The conviction and sentence was upheld by the 
High Court in appeal. 
In the instant appeals, the appellant challenged his 
conviction on various grounds viz. i) that one 'K', an 
independent witness, who was allegedly joined by the 
prosecution was not examined and thus the entire story 
G 
·-of the prosecution is liable to be rejected; ii) that in H 
406 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012) 11 S.C.R. 
A absence of an independent witness, the conviction based 
on official witnesses cannot be sustained; and iii) that 
after the a11eged seizure of contraband in two separate 
bags, there was no need for the officers to mix both, and 
then take out two samples and this was an irregularity 
s which went against the prosecution case. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. It is the case of the prosecution that while 
'K' was just passing through, he met the police party who 
C had laid a special nakabandi near Basantpur Bus-stand 
for nabbing the anti-social elements. In such 
circumstance, his presence cannot be doubted, on the 
other hand, his presence seems to be natural and a 
perusal of the consent memo, the recovery memo a

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