Appellant's Narcotic Possession Conviction Upheld, Evidence Deemed Credible and Admissible

The High Court upheld the appellant's conviction and sentence under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, for possessing opium. The court found the evidence provided by prosecution witnesses, including those from the Customs Department, to be credible and admissible. The appellant's confessional statement was deemed admissible, and the lack of examination of independent witnesses and bus staff did not weaken the prosecution's case. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial court's judgment and directing the appellant to serve his sentence and pay the fine.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the conviction and sentence under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
2. Credibility of the prosecution witnesses, primarily from the Customs Department.
3. Admissibility of the appellant's confessional statement.
4. Non-examination of independent witnesses and bus staff.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legitimacy of the Conviction and Sentence under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985:
The appellant was convicted under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, for possessing 4 kgs 200 gms of opium. The trial court sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment of ten years and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000, with an additional six months of rigorous imprisonment in default of payment. The High Court confirmed the trial court's judgment, finding the evidence sufficient to support the conviction and sentence.

2. Credibility of the Prosecution Witnesses, Primarily from the Customs Department:
The appellant challenged the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, arguing they were interested parties as they belonged to the Customs Department. The High Court noted that the evidence of witnesses cannot be judged solely based on their official status. The court emphasized that the merit of the evidence should be considered, not the status of the individuals providing it. The court found no indication that the witnesses were inimical or had any interest in falsely implicating the appellant. The court cited the Supreme Court's rulings, which affirm that the testimony of police officers cannot be discarded merely because of their official status, provided their evidence is credible and trustworthy.

3. Admissibility of the Appellant's Confessional Statement:
The appellant's confessional statement was a significant piece of evidence. He admitted to carrying the opium on instructions from Banmalidas Potedar and Ramdhani Singh, stating he was paid for the task due to his financial difficulties. The High Court held that the confessional statement was admissible, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Raj Kumar Karwal v. Union of India, which clarified that officers of the Customs Department are not considered police officers under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, confessions made to them are admissible in evidence. The court found the appellant's confession corroborated by the recovery of the opium from his possession.

4. Non-examination of Independent Witnesses and Bus Staff:
The appellant argued that the prosecution failed to examine independent witnesses and the bus staff (driver and conductor). The High Court noted that the occurrence took place at a distance from the bazaar, and no independent witnesses were available at the spot. The court found that the non-examination of the bus driver and conductor did not weaken the prosecution's case, as other credible witnesses from the Customs Department were examined and cross-examined. The court emphasized that the evidence of the officials was consistent and credible, and there was no reason to doubt their testimony.

Conclusion:
The High Court upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant, finding the evidence against him credible and sufficient. The court dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment and order of the trial court. The appellant was directed to serve the remaining period of his sentence and pay the fine as ordered.

---