UMAR ABDUL SAKOOR SORA THIA versus INTELLIGENCE OFFICER NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 113 · Decided: 06-08-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS, D.P. MOHAPATRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
UMAR ABDUL SAKOOR SORA THIA 
v. 
INTELLIGENCE OFFICER 
NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU 
AUGUST 6, 1999 
[K.T. THOMAS AND D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.] 
Criminal Law : 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: 
A 
B 
c 
Sections 29 and 23-Police intercepted truck carrying "Mandrax" 
tablets-Said stock despatched from a port in India to a company abroad-
Accused was one of the key persons who conspired with four others already 
charge-sheeted-Both the consignor and consignee were fictitious concerns-
Accused was Chairman of the clearing agency company which took possession D 
· . of the consignment during off-loading operations on behalf of the non-
existing consignee-Witness identified a photograph as that of the accused 
who drove a car at the time of interception and who curiously watched the 
off-loading operations-Held: Under such circumstances, trial court and 
High Court rightly refused to discharge accused-Criminal Procedure Code, E 
1973, S.227. 
Evidence Act, 1872: 
Section 9-Accused-Jdentification-Mode-ldentification by 
photograph-Admissibility-Witness identified the photograph of accused as F 
the person whom he saw at the relevant time-Accused was not a proclaimed 
offender and court did not consider the eventuality in which accused was to 
be so proclaimed-Held: Identification by photograph admissible in evidence. 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: 
Sections 228 and 240-Framing of charge-Scope-Held: Court not 
expected to go deep into the probative value of materials on record-If on 
basis of materials on record court comes to conclusion that accused would 
have committed the offence, court obliged to frame charge and proceed to 
trial. 
113 
G 
H 
114 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) SUPP. I S.C.R. 
, A 
The appellant was charged under Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and 
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and his application for discharge under 
Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 was dismissed by the 
trial court and the High Court. Hence this appeal. 
According to the prosecution, the police intercepted a truck carrying 
B tablets of "Mandrax" which was a high potency narcotic substance. The said 
stock was despatched from a port in India to a company abroad. The appellant 
was one of the key persons who conspired with the other four accused 
already charge-sheeted. Both the consignor and the consignee were fictitious 
concerns. The appellant was the Chairman of the clearing agency company, 
C which took possession of the consignment during off-loading operations on 
behalf of the non-existing consignee. The police officer identified the 
photograph of the appellant as that of the person whom he saw driving a car 
at the time of interception of the truck and who was curiously watching the 
off-loading operations. 
D 
On behalf of the appellant it w.as contended that identification by 
photograph was inadmissible in evidence. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1. Prosecution has to examine the police officer as a witness 
E in the court and he has to identify the accused in the court. Then alone it 
would become substantive evidence. But that does not mean that at the stage 
o'f framing of the charge the court is disabled from considering the prospect 
of such a witness correctly identifying the appellant cluring trial. In so 
considering the court can take into account the fact that during investigation 
F . the photograph of the appellant was shown to the witness and he identified 
that person as the one whom he saw at the relevant time. It must be borne 
in mind that the appellant is not a proclaimed offender and this Court is not 
considering the eventuality in which he would be so proclaimed.(118-F-G-H] 
G 
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569, held inapplicable. 
2. The court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the 
materials on record. If on the basis of materials on record the court could 
come to the conclusion that the accused would have committed the offence 
the court is obliged to frame the charge and proceed to the trial. [119-G) 
H 
State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa, (1996) 4 SCC 659, followed. 
U.A.S. SORA THIA v. INTEL. OFFICER NARCOTIC CONT. BUREAU [THOMAS, J.] 115 
Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration, [1996) 9 SCC 766, held A 
inapplicable. 
3. There is no scope for contending in this case that the court cannot 
frame charge under Section 29 read with Section 23 of the Narcotic Drugs 
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The trial

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