TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 575
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the prosecution was that on 31-5-2014, the Station House Officer (SHO for short) of Chakarbhata Police Station received a secret information that the appellant and his friend Reena Das, were carrying ganja in the dickey of a car bearing registration no.CG-04HA-4850 and were travelling from Raipur to Pendra Road; that the SHO recorded this information in Rojnamcha Sanha, prepared Mukhbir Suchana, forwarded the said information to the higher officer, proceeded to the spot, stopped the car, served a notice under Section 50 of the Act, conducted a search and found 47.370 Kgs. of ganja kept in three bags in the dickey of the car; that after weighing the contraband and preparing Panchnama, the SHO collected samples from each of the three bags, sent them to Forensic Science Laboratory ('FSL' for short) and after receipt of the Report, filed a charge-sheet against the appellant as well as his friend Reena Das for an offence punishable under Section 20(b) of the Act. 4. The prosecution examined seven witnesses. Two independent witnesses were examined as court witnesses CWs 1 and 2. 5. By a judgment dated 10-5-2017, the Special Court convicted the appellant for the offence....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Constable examined as PWs 3 and 4 corroborated the statement of PW-7 with regard to the compliance of the requirements of Sections 42 and 57 of the Act. Though an argument was raised before the High Court on behalf of the appellant that the samples sent to FSL were not part of the seized contraband, it was rejected by the High Court on the basis of the cogent testimony of PW-7. This is how the High Court confirmed the conviction of the appellant as well as the sentence imposed upon him. 12. Assailing the concurrent judgments of the Special Court and the High Court, it was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, (i) that the informant and the I.O. happened to be the same person; (ii) that the independent witnesses namely CW-1 and CW-2 did not support the case of the prosecution, thereby leaving the testimony of PW-7 uncorroborated; (iii) that when the appellant and the co-accused were alleged in the charge-sheet to be travelling in the same car from which ganja was seized, the acquittal of one of them and the conviction of the other, on the basis of the very same testimony of PW-7 cannot be sustained; and (iv) that the principles laid down in a series of judgme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de in itself; • That once the procedure enumerated in Sections 42, 43, 49 & 50 are scrupulously followed, it was for the accused, from whose possession the substance is recovered, to explain how he came into possession; • That as held by this Court in Mukesh Singh v. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi) [(2020) 10 SCC 120], it is not always necessary to corroborate the testimony of police officials, through the testimony of independent witnesses; • That as held by this Court in Dharampal Singh v. State of Punjab [(2010) 9 SCC 608], lack of independent witness is not fatal to the case of the prosecution; • That by the same analogy it was held by this Court in Rizwan Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2020) 9 SCC 627], that the independent witnesses turning hostile, cannot be a ground for acquittal under the NDPS Act; • That the protection under Section 50 of the Act is available only to the search of the body of a person and not to the search of a vehicle or place, as held by this Court in State of Punjab v. Baljinder Singh and Ors. [(2019) 10 SCC 473]; • That since the recovery was made in this case from t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....also choose to examine them before Court, then the Court has to see whether the version of the independent witnesses who turned hostile is unbelievable and whether there is a possibility that they have become turncoats. 19. Let us see in the case on hand what PW-7 stated about the manner in which the witnesses were roped in. The relevant portion of the testimony (Chief Examination) of PW-7, where a reference is made to independent witnesses, is extracted as follows : "(5) I got the information on 31-5-2014 at 16.50 Hrs. from informant that the one silver colour Hyundai Verna Car having Registration No. C.G.-04-HA-4850 is silver, in which, Sanjeet Kumar Singh @ Munna Singh resident of Kabir Nagar, Raipur and his lady friend namely Reena Das @ Manali Das resident of Kabir Nagar, Raipur have left towards Pendra road from Raipur carrying huge quantity of cannabis in the truck (Dikki) of Car for the purpose of sale, who would go via Pandidiha bypass Road. I lodge the above report at the Serial No. 1283 of Station Diary register maintained at Police Station. Today, I brought the Daily Register with me. The Serial No. 1283 entered in the Daily Register is Exhibit P-1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll that at what time, the above witnesses in Police Station. xx       xx       xx (24) The houses of witnesses namely Sunil Maldhani and Firturam is situated at the distance about one Kilometer away from Police Station. It is correct to say that it takes the time to search for and reaching to witnesses. The witness was silent, when the question asked that at what time the independent witnesses were presented. It is incorrect to say that on the memo of the information received from the informant, I had took the signatures of respective signatures of witnesses after returning to Police Station from the place of the occurrence of incident. xx       xx       xx (29) I get the contraband substances identified by the witnesses. It is correct to say that I have not mentioned that contraband substances identified by the witnesses in memo of identification Exhibit C-7. xx       xx       xx (38) It is also incorrect t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... himself states that once he was called. It is incorrect to say that on 31-5-2014 at about 17.00 hours. I was called at the Police-station, witness himself states that because there was dispute between Sindhis he went to the Police-station. It is correct to say that at that day Sunil Maghlani also went there with me. It is correct to say that upon saying of someone document must not be signed without reading it... xx       xx       xx 7. It is incorrect to say that Weighment Panchnama was done in my presence. It is incorrect to say that Ganja recovered from accused was weighed in my presence and in the presence of Sunil Malghani and at that time 20 kilo 370 grams in one bag, 20 kilogram in second bag and 07 kilogram in third bag was found." 22. The relevant portion of the evidence of Shri Sunil Kumar Malghani, examined as CW-2 reads as follows : "1. I do not know accused persons present here in the Court. In the Year 2014 I was Counsellor of Ward number 7 of Bodri Nagar Panchayat. Two and half year ago I and Firturam Banware went to Police-station Chakarbhata. We went ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n documents. //Cross-examination by Shri Kundan Singh, Public Prosecutor for Prosecution// 5. It is correct to say that when I signed on documents at that time nothing was written on documents. It is correct to say that my signature was taken on blank documents. It is correct to say that the documents on which my signature was taken were not read over to me." 25. The independent witnesses who turned hostile, not only denied having witnessed anything, but also came up with a plausible explanation as to how their signatures found place in the documents mentioned by PW-7. According to both the independent witnesses they went to the police station in connection with some other dispute relating to the members of the Sindhi community. These 2 witnesses claimed to be elected counsellors of the local Panchayat and this claim was not challenged by the Additional Public Prosecutor in cross examination. Therefore, the case on hand is not a routine, run-of-the-mill matter where independent witnesses are won over and they had no explanation to offer about their signatures in the Panchanama. 26. The statement of these two independent witnesses assumes signi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted 1 Km. away. Therefore, there was no way that PW-7 could have expected the witness to be available at the place of incident at 17:10 hrs. 30. Exhibit C-2 is the notice served on the appellant herein (A-1) under Section 50 of the Act. The time shown therein is 18:00 hrs. This notice requires the appellant to indicate whether he would like to be searched in the presence of Magistrate or Gazetted Officer. It is also stated in the notice that the contents thereof were read over in the presence of witnesses. Exhibit C-3 is the consent Panchnama of the appellant agreeing to be searched by the police officer. This Panchnama contains the names of Sunil Malghani and Firuturam Banware (CWs 1 and 2). Even the search Panchnama of the accused marked as Exhibit C-4 refers to the presence of CWs 1 and 2 at the time of search. 31. Therefore, it is clear that the I.O. examined as PW-7 claims to have done everything only in the presence of independent witnesses. But those independent witnesses not merely denied their presence and participation but also came up with an explanation as to how their signatures found a place in those documents. 32. In such circumstances, a seri....