2016 (7) TMI 114 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court upholds NDPS Act conviction, dismisses appeal challenging trial court decision.

Jagat Singh Versus State of Uttarakhand

The Supreme Court dismissed the appellant's appeal against conviction under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act. The court upheld the Trial Court's decision of ... Prosecution proceedings under the NDPS act - Held that:- We find from the record of the case that the recovery of contraband was made from the appellant in the public place. In this view of the matter, the case in hand fell under Section 43 of the NDPS Act. So far as compliance of Section 50 is concerned, the prosecution proved that PW-5-who was a gazzetted officer, was called and then in his presence the recovery of contraband was made from the appellant. - the two Courts below, in our opinion, rightly held that the prosecution was able to prove their case beyond the reasonable doubt against the appellant and hence the appellant had to suffer conviction as awarded by the Trial Court. - Decided against the appellants. Issues:Appeal against conviction under Section 8/20 of NDPS Act, compliance with mandatory requirements of Section 42 and Section 50 of NDPS Act, contradictions in witness statements, recovery of contraband in a public place, compliance with Section 50, non-recording of secret information, technical points relating to facts.Analysis:1) Appeal against Conviction:The appellant appealed against the final judgment convicting him under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act. The Special Judge had sentenced him to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Trial Court's decision. The appellant then filed an appeal before the Supreme Court challenging the judgment.2) Compliance with Mandatory Requirements:The appellant argued that the prosecution failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 42 and Section 50 of the NDPS Act during the search conducted on him. The defense contended that this non-compliance was a fatal infirmity in the prosecution's case, warranting the appellant's conviction to be set aside. The respondent, however, supported the lower courts' decisions, stating that there was no need for interference as the courts had correctly dealt with the issue.3) Contradictions in Witness Statements:The High Court noted minor contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses regarding the weights of the contraband. However, the court deemed these contradictions insignificant and not sufficient to disbelieve the prosecution's case. The quantity of Cannabis recovered was significantly higher than the minimum commercial quantity, strengthening the prosecution's case.4) Recovery of Contraband in a Public Place:The recovery of contraband from the appellant took place in a public place, falling under Section 43 of the NDPS Act. The prosecution established compliance with Section 50 by calling a gazetted officer (PW-5) to witness the recovery. The court found that the compliance with Section 50 was proper, leaving no room for fault in its enforcement.5) Non-Recording of Secret Information:The appellant contended that the officials did not record the secret information they claimed to have received before conducting the search. However, the court found that the information was indeed recorded, rejecting the submission as factually incorrect.6) Technical Points and Conclusion:The appellant raised some technical points related to facts, which the court deemed unnecessary to mention or elaborate on. These submissions were rejected for lacking merit. After thorough consideration of the arguments and evidence, the Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it accordingly.