UNION OF INDIA versus JAROOPARAM

Citation: [2018] 1 S.C.R. 618 · Decided: 31-01-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
618
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 1 S.C.R.
UNION OF INDIA
v.
JAROOPARAM
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 741-742 of 2011)
JANUARY 31, 2018
[N. V. RAMANA AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 –
s.52A – Disposal of seized narcotic drugs – Allegation of recovery
of 7.2 kg of contraband material (opium) from respondent-accused –
Conviction under s.8/18 r/w s.29 – Acquittal by High Court on the
ground that the bulk quantity of the seized case property was not
disposed of by the Executive Magistrate; that statement of accused
under s.67 was recorded in police custody and the signature of
accused was falsely obtained on blank papers  – Held: In the
impugned order, the High Court has observed that the order of the
Executive Magistrate  did not show that the property was disposed
of, but it was recorded therein that after the preparation of the
samples, the samples and the bulk quantity of property were returned
to the investigating officer – Thus, it is apparent that the property
was not disposed of – Omission on the part of the prosecution to
produce the bulk quantity of seized opium created doubt on the
genuineness of the samples drawn from the allegedly seized
contraband – A bare perusal of the record showed that at no point
of time any prayer was made by the prosecution for destruction of
the said opium or disposal thereof otherwise – Even no notice was
given to the accused before such alleged destruction/disposal –
High Court committed no error in disbelieving the prosecution story
by arriving at the conclusion that at the trial, the bulk quantities of
contraband were not exhibited to the witnesses at the time of
adducing evidence – The independent witnesses also turned hostile
and did not support its case – It is manifest from the record that they
had simply put their signatures on the papers at the whims of
investigating agency – The version of prosecution that the accused
voluntarily made the confessional statement cannot be believed in
the light of admission by Narcotics Officer (PW 5), a key prosecution
witness, that the statement of accused under s.67 of the Act was
recorded while he was in his custody and the time was not mentioned
618
[2018] 1 S.C.R. 618
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
619
on the statements – This fact was further corroborated with the
statement of PW 6 also that the statement of accused was recorded
after arrest and while in custody – Thus, it cannot be said that the
statement of the accused confessing the crime was of voluntarily
made under the provisions of the Act – Interference with the order
of High Court not called for.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. From the proceedings of Executive Magistrate,
it is crystal clear that the remaining seized stuff was not disposed
of by the Executive Magistrate. The contraband stuff as also the
samples sealed as usual were handed over physically to the
Investigating Officer (PW 6). Also the trial Court in its judgment
specifically passed instructions to preserve the seized property
and record of the case in safe custody, as the co-accused was
absconding.  In such situation, it assumes importance that there
was nothing on record to show as to what happened to the
remaining bulk quantity of contraband. The absence of proper
explanation from the prosecution significantly undermines its case
and reduces the evidentiary value of the statements made by the
witnesses. [Para 9]  [624-B-D]
2.  Omission on the part of the prosecution to produce the
bulk quantity of seized opium would create a doubt in the mind of
Court on the genuineness of the samples drawn from the allegedly
seized contraband.  However, the simple argument that the same
had been destroyed, cannot be accepted as it is not clear that on
what authority it was done. Law requires that such an authority
must flow from an order passed by the Magistrate. A bare perusal
of the record shows that at no point of time any prayer had been
made by the prosecution for destruction of the said opium or
disposal thereof otherwise. The only course of action the
prosecution should have resorted to is to for its disposal is to
obtain an order from the competent Court of Magistrate as
envisaged under Section 52A of the Act. It is explicitly made
under the Act that as and when such an application is made, the
Magistrate may, as soon as may be, allow the application.[Para
10] [624-E-G]
 3. There is no denial of the fact that the prosecution has
not filed any such application for dis

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