SURINDER KUMAR versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2020] 1 S.C.R. 307 · Decided: 06-01-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 3 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
307
SURINDER KUMAR
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB
(Criminal Appeal No. 512 of 2009)
JANUARY 06, 2020
[N. V. RAMANA, R. SUBHASH REDDY AND
B. R. GAVAI, JJ.]
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985:
s. 50  –  Recovery of opium  –  Trial  –  Conviction  –  Confirmed
in appeal by High Court  –  Appeal to Supreme Court  –  Held: No
violation of s. 50  – Chain of evidence was complete  – Non-
examination of ASI, ASP and independent witnesses was not fatal
in the facts of the case.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. The ASI after producing the case property before
the Court, returned the case property to PW-3 with the seals
intact. ASI was not in possession of seals of either of the
investigating officer or of PW-3. Therfore, the question of
tampering with the case property by him did not arise at all. Further
he has returned the case property, after production of the same,
before the Illaqa Magistrate, with the seals intact, to PW3. In
that view of the matter, the Trial Court and the High Court have
rightly held that non-examination of the ASI did not, in any way,
affect the case of prosecution. Further, it is evident from the report
of the Chemical Examiner, Ex.P-10, that the sample was received
with seals intact and that the seals on the sample, tallied with the
sample seals. In that view of the matter, the chain of evidence
was complete. [Paras 10 and 11] [312-A, C, D-E]
2. The Trial Court as well as the High Court, has recorded
a finding that the perusal of the record reveals the ASP was
summoned number of times but either service was not effected
or as and when he was served, he sent a request for exemption
from personal attendance  stating valid reasons. Further, it appears
that the High Court has issued directions to the Trial Court  to
   [2020] 1 S.C.R. 307
307
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
308
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
decide the case before 30.04.1999. As much as the ASP was not
examined by 30.04.1999, a request for an extension was sought
by the Special Judge, and it was adjourned to 17.05.1999. Even
by 17.05.1999, the ASP could not be served as he was on leave.
In view of such reasoning assigned by the Trial Court, as well as
the High Court, merely  because the ASP was not examined, it
cannot be  said  that prosecution has failed to prove its case. It is
clear from the evidence on record that he was summoned at the
time of search and seizure and only in his presence search was
conducted, as such, there is no violation of Section 50 of the NDPS
Act.  [Para 13] [313-A-C]
3. PW-1, during the course of cross-eamination, has stated
that efforts were made to join independent witnesses, but none
were available. Mere fact that the case of the prosecution is based
on the evidence of official witnesses, does not mean that same
should not be believed. [Para 14] [313-E]
4. From the evidence on record in the present case, the
prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellant beyond
reasonable doubt. The conviction recorded and the sentence
imposed is in conformity with the provisions of law and evidence
on record, thus no interference is called for. [Para 17] [314-D]
Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra (2006)
10 SCC 681 : [2006] 7 Suppl. SCR 156 ; Noor Aga v.
State of Punjab & Anr. (2008) 16 SCC 417 : [2008]
10 SCR 379 ; Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab (2018) 17
SCC 627 : [2018] 9 SCR 1006 ; Jarnail Singh v. State
of Punjab (2011) 3 SCC 521 : [2011] 2 SCR 888 ;
Varinder Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2019)
SCC Online SC 170 ; State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi v.
Sunil & Anr. (2001) 1 SCC 652 : [2000] 5 Suppl. SCR 
144 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2006] 7 Suppl. SCR 156
 referred to.
Para 8
[2008] 10 SCR 379
 referred to.
Para 8
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
309
[2018] 9 SCR 1006 
 referred to.
Para 8
[2011] 2 SCR 888
 referred to.
Para 9
[2000] 5 Suppl. SCR 144
 referred to.
Para 15
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 512 of 2009.
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.04.2008 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 706-SB
of 1999.
Mahabir Singh, Sr. Adv., Ms. Preeti Singh, D. Mahesh Babu, Gagan
Deep Sharma, Ms. Swati Jindal, Amit K. Nair, Advs. for the Appellant.
Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Adv. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.
1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the soleaccused, aggrieved by
the judgment dated 22.04.2008
passed in Criminal Appeal No.706-SB
of 1999 passed by the High Court of Punjab and
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.