Law Does Not Require Only An Independent Witness To Prove NDPS Act Charges: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court recently held that the law does not require only an independent witness to prove a charge attracting the provisions of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). A bench of Justice M M Sundresh and Justice Aravind Kumar made the observation while considering a case where the appellant had been found guilty of an offence under Section 15 of the NDPS...
The Supreme Court recently held that the law does not require only an independent witness to prove a charge attracting the provisions of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).
A bench of Justice M M Sundresh and Justice Aravind Kumar made the observation while considering a case where the appellant had been found guilty of an offence under Section 15 of the NDPS Act by the trial court and subsequently the High Court for possession of poppy husk amounting to 54 Kgs.
The Appellant argued that only police witnesses had been examined and, in the absence of any independent witness, the appellant ought not to have been convicted by the courts below.
The appellant also argued that he was merely traveling in the car and that he was not in conscious possession of the contraband. The CFCL form was not filled up at the place of recovery, it was contended. It was also contended that the procedure contemplated under the NDPS Act, with respect to seizure and recovery, has not been complied with.
The State argued that all the submissions had been considered by the courts below while convicting the Appellant. It was also pointed out that the Trial Court had only imposed a minimum sentence of 10 years of rigorous imprisonment on the Appellant.
The Court did not agree with any of the contentions raised by the Appellant and hence refused to interfere with the High Court order. The Appeal was thus dismissed:
"We find no merit in this appeal. Law does not require only an independent witness to prove a charge attracting the provisions of NDPS Act. As was rightly held by the Courts below, there is procedural compliance with respect to arrest, seizure and recovery. PW-3 is competent to undertake the exercise of gathering evidence and, in any case, PW-7 who himself is a gazetted officer was very much present. The recovery was also made from the car. The views expressed by the Courts below that non-filling of the CFCL form at the site where the arrest and recovery was made would not vitiate the case as it constitutes a part of procedural law" the Apex Court said.
Case Title: JAGWINDER SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2027 OF 2012
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 990