UNION OF INDIA versus LEEN MARTIN & ANR.

Citation: [2018] 1 S.C.R. 656 · Decided: 01-02-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
656
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 1 S.C.R.
UNION OF INDIA
v.
LEEN MARTIN & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No.  2150 of 2011)
FEBRUARY 01, 2018
[N. V. RAMANA AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 –
ss.8(c), 23 – Contraband goods – Recovery of hashish weighing
12.03 kg from respondent no.1 – Conviction under ss.8(c), 23 –
High Court acquitted respondent no.1 of all charges on the ground
that the prosecution failed to establish that the panchas were present
during seizure procedure and the testimony of intelligence officer
(PW-1) relied upon by trial court was highly inconsistent and full of
contradictions – On appeal, held: Evidence of independent
witnesses contradicted the statement of PW-1 – They categorically
stated that they were called by PW-1 and by the time they reached,
the bag was already opened – The Panchanama was not read over
to them and they were asked to sign on number of papers and they
were not aware of the contents – When the statement of official
statement is impaired due to infirmities, it is not safe to place reliance
upon the same and pass conviction order against the accused –
High Court rightly acquitted respondent No.1.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD:  Both PW-8 and PW-9 have categorically stated that,
when they were called by the Intelligence Officer (PW-1) and by
the time they reached, the bag was already opened. Further it
was admitted by them that, the panchanama was not read over to
them. They were asked to sign on number of papers and they
were not aware of the contents. Moreover, PW-1 i.e., the
intelligence officer did not state that the bag containing the
narcotic substance was opened in the presence of panchas. The
cross-examination of PW-9 clearly revealed that he did not agree
to the contents of the panchanama with respect to the fact that
the search and inspection of the baggage took place in his
presence. His signatures obtained on the panchanama were not
656
[2018] 1 S.C.R. 656
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
657
voluntarily put.  The entire case of the prosecution hinged on the
alleged recovery of the narcotic substance from respondent no.
1 but, this very fact was not proved beyond reasonable doubt as
independent witnesses PW-8 and PW-9 portrayed a different story
as to the recovery and seizure. In the facts and circumstances of
this case exclusive reliance on the statement made by respondent
no. 1 would neither be prudent nor safe; especially considering
the fact that, the statement of respondent no. 1 procured under
Section 67 of the NDPS Act was retracted. [Paras 10, 11] [659-E-
G; 660-B-D]
2. The statement of the official witness PW-1 cannot be the
sole basis for convicting respondent no. 1. When the statement
of official witness is impaired due to infirmities, it is not safe to
place reliance upon the same and pass conviction order against
the accused. In the present case, the statements of the
independent panch witnesses depict a different picture than the
one portrayed by the official witness PW-1.  The High Court had
rightly acquitted the respondent no.1 taking into consideration
the aforesaid aspects. [Paras 12, 13]  [660-D-F]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :  Criminal Appeal
No. 2150 of 2011.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.11.2008 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 379 of 2007.
Ms. Alka Agrawal, T. C. Sharma, K. L. Janjani, B. V. Balaram
Das, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advs. for the Appellant.
Anand Grover, Sr. Adv., Ms. Tripti Tandon, Satbir Singh Pillania,
Somvir Deswal, R. C. Gubrele, Kunal Cheema, Nishant Ramakantrao
Katneshwarkar, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
N. V. RAMANA, J. 1. This criminal appeal arises from the
impugned judgment, and order, dated 20.11.2008, in Criminal Appeal No.
379/2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, wherein
the High Court acquitted the respondent no.1 ofall the charges under
sections 8(c), punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) and underSection 28
read with Section 23 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘N.D.P.S Act’).
UNION OF INDIA v. LEEN MARTIN & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
658
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 1 S.C.R.
2. A brief reference to the prosecution case may be necessary
for disposal of this case. On 05.05.2004, the officers of Customs, Air
Intelligence Unit, at ChhatrapatiShivaji International Airport, Mumbai
noticed that a passenger of European origin was found

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