UNION OF INDIA versus SATROHAN

Citation: [2008] 10 S.C.R. 888 · Decided: 14-07-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2008] 10 S.C.R. 888 
UNION OF INDIA 
v. 
SATROHAN 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1145 of 2001) 
JULY 14, 2008 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 
- ss. 41, 42, 50, 57 and 67 - Recovery of 309 kgs of poppy 
c straws from house of accused - Conviction and sentence of 
10 years RI - However, acquittal by High Court for non-com-
pliance of ss. 42(2) and 50 and father of accused had licence 
for opium - On appeal, held: Opium and poppy straws are two 
different entries and are not interchangeable - Plea that the 
articles seized might have been covered by father's licence is 
D without any basis- Jn the.confessional statement the accused 
clearly stated about the ownership - There has been no re-
traction at any point of time - ss. 42(2) and 50 not applicable · 
to the instant case - Thus, order of High Court set aside. 
E 
The Inspector of Narcotics Department along with 
other officials conducted raid in the house of the respon-
dent on the basis of secret information and recovered 
bags containing 309 kgs. of poppy straws. The respon-
dent could not explain legal possession of poppy straws 
F and was arrested. Trial Court convicted the respondent 
u/ss. B(c) and 15 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotro-
pic Substances Act, 1985 and sentenced to him to 10 years 
rigorous imprisonment. However, High Court acquitted 
the ,respondent as there was non-compliance of ss. 42(2) 
G and 50, and that the respondent's father had licence for 
cultivation of opium. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellant-Union of India contended that the trial court 
had relied. upon the confession of the accused respon-
dent; that the High Court acquitted the respondents on 
H 
888 
,-
UNION OF INDIA v. SATROHAN 
889 
+ 
the ground of non-examination of independent witnesses, A 
lack of evidence to show exclusive ownership, and the 
alleged non-compliance of ss. 42(2) and 50 of the Act; that 
s. 50 is not applicable to the case~ that u/s. 57 secret in-
formation and the particulars. of seiz'ure .and arrest have 
"i 
to be sent; that the records if asked for could have been ·s 
produced; that no evidence was Jed nor any question was 
asked about absence of records; and that Uie Inspector 
was a Gazetted Officer and, thus, even if it is conceded 
that there is any incorrect reference, the acts are covered 
u/s 41 and not u/s. 42 of the Act. 
c · 
Respondent-accused . contended that the confes-
sional statement could not have been relied upon; that 
the statement was recorded by PW-2 and by the investi-
gating officer-PW-6 on 20.11.1992 whereas PW-6 was en-
.+ 
trusted with investigation only on 3.12.1992; that the in-
D 
vestigating officer was not a Gazetted Officer, since au-
thorization was obtained s. 57 comes into play; and that 
the respondent's father had licence. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
E 
HELD: 1. The High Court was clearly in error by set-
ting aside the judgment of the trial court. The judgment of 
the High Court is set aside and that of the trial court is 
restored. [Para 17] (899-E] 
.-Ji 
F 
2.1 Section 2(xv) and Section 2(xviii) of the Narcot-
ics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 defines 
"opium' and "poppy straws" respectively. It is the stand 
of the respondent that since there was licence of opium, 
there is presumption that there was licence of poppy 
straws. High Court did not direct acquittal on the ground G 
that there was licence for poppy straws also. The evi-
dence on record clearly shows that the expressions 
"opium" and "poppy straws" are not interchangeable as 
s. 2(xiv) clearly mak?s out a distinction between opium · 
and poppy straws. Opium appears at entry SI. No.92 while H 
890 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008) 10 S.C.R. 
~ 
A 
poppy straws at SI. No.110. [Paras 6 and 7] [892-F,G,G, 893-A] 
2.2 With regard to the role of PW-6, it is to be noted 
that there is no reference to the stand highlighted by the 
High Court. The confessional statement was recorded ·on 
B 
20~11 .1992 and the statement u/s. 313 of the Code was 
~ 
recorded on 6.2.1999. In the cohfessional statement the 
accused has clearly stated about the ownership; Thus, 
there has been no retraction at any point of time. The po-
sition is also clear from s. 57 of the Code. At the time of 
production before the Magistrate, there was no allegation 
c of any torture as presently submitted. [Paras 6 and 7] [893-
A,B,C,D] 
Kanhaiyalal v. Union of India 2008 (1) SCALE 165; A.K. 
Mehaboob v.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.