U.O.I. versus BAL MUKUND & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 5 S.C.R. 205 · Decided: 31-03-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 5 S.C.R. 205 
... ' 
U.0.1. 
A 
... 
v. 
BAL MUKUND & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1397 of 2007) 
., 
MARCH 31, 2009 
B 
[S.B. SINHA, DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND 
H.L. DATTU, JJ.] 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 
- ss. 42, 55 and 67 - Standing Instruction No. 1188 - Receipt c 
of secret information - Search leading to seizure of 
contraband - Trial court convicting the accused - High Court 
setting aside the conviction - Justification of- Held: On facts, 
justified -
There was non-compliance of mandatory 
' 
)( 
requirements/statutory provisions in respect of search, seizure 
D 
and taking of samples - Also there was doubt as to whether 
the purported confessions by accused were voluntary -
Moreover the confessions were subsequently retracted and 
-
there was no independent corroboration - Evidence -
Confessional statement - Appreciation of. 
E 
Interpretation of Statutes - Strict construction - NDPS Act 
- Act providing for stringent punishment - Requirement of 
scrupulous compliance of the statutory provisions - Narcotic 
o1 
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 
F 
Appeal - Appeal against acquittal - Interference by 
Appellate Court - Ambit and scope - Held: Appellate court 
not to interfere with judgment of acquittal only because another 
view is possible. 
G 
• 
Pursuant to receipt of secret information, respondent 
y 
nos. 1 and 2 were searched and contraband was 
recovered from the cement gunny bags carried by them. 
According to the prosecution, 10 Kg. of opium packed in 
205 
H 
206 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
• [2009] 5 S.C.R. 
A 5 polythene bags of 2 Kg each were recovered from each 
of them. Respondent nos.1 and 2 purportedly made 
confession before authorities under the Narcotic Drugs 
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 that they were 
carrying the contraband at the behest of respondent no.3 
B to be delivered at a particular destination. Even though 
-r· 
subsequently the respondents retracted the purported 
confessions made by them, the trial court placed reliance 
upon the same and convicted respondent nos.1 and 2 
under section 8/18 of the Act and respondent 3 under 
c section 8/27 of the Act. On appeal, the High Court set 
aside the conviction. Hence the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1.1. Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and 
D Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 mandates 
compliance of the requirements contained therein, viz., 
if the officer has reason to believe from personal 
knowledge or information given by any person which 
should be taken down in writing that any drug or 
E psychotropic substance or controlled substance in 
respect of which an offence punishable under the Act 
has been committed, he is empowered to exercise his 
power enumerated in clauses (a) and (b) of Section 42(1) 
of the Act between sunrise and sunset. Subject to just 
F exceptions, thus; taking down the information in writing 
is, therefore, very necessary to be complied with. Sub-
section (2) of Section 42 of the Act provides that such an 
information reduced in writing should be communicated 
to his immediate superior officers within seventy two 
G hours. [Para 18] [217-G-H; 218-A-C-D] 
H 
1.2. In the present case, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 
were arrested on the basis of some secret information 
received by the informant. The said purported secret 
information revealed the exact place, time and quantity 
U.0.1. v. BAL MUKUND & ORS. 
207 
of the narcotics respondent nos.1 and 2 would be 
A 
-
carrying. It was, however, neither recorded in writing nor 
was forwarded to the superior officers. No explanation 
has been offered as to why the mandatory requirements 
of law could not be complied with. [Para 17] [217-E-F; 
-. 
218-E] 
8 
2.1. In the present case, the trial court failed and/ or 
neglected to notice that the respondent Mo. 3 had 
retracted his confession at the earliest possible 
opportunity. He could have, therefore, been convicted c 
only if independent corroboration thereof was available. 
No contraband was found from his possession. He was 
prosecuted for entering into a conspiracy in regard to 
commission of the offences under Section 8/18 of the Act 
with the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Such conspiracy was 
D 
.. _ ;r' 
not proved by the prosecution. No evidence whatsoever 
was brought on record in that behalf. The High Court, 
therefore, rightly accepted the contention of the · 
respondent no.3. [Para 19] [218-F-H] 
2.2. The situation in which such purpo

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