Case Law Details
Jagwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab (Supreme Court of India)
Introduction: In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of India provided crucial clarity on the evidentiary standards under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The case in question, Jagwinder Singh vs State of Punjab, dealt with the possession of 54 kgs of poppy husk under Section 15 of the NDPS Act. The appellant contested the conscious possession charge, highlighting the absence of certain documentation during the recovery process.
Detailed Analysis: The appellant’s argument centered on the lack of conscious possession and the absence of proper documentation, specifically the CFCL form, during the recovery of the contraband. The State countered, pointing out that the trial court had already considered these points and imposed a minimum 10-year rigorous imprisonment sentence.
The Supreme Court, in dismissing the appeal, upheld the decisions of the lower courts. The Court emphasized that compliance with the NDPS Act was observed in the arrest, seizure, and recovery processes. It highlighted the competence of PW-3 in gathering evidence and stressed the presence of PW-7, a gazetted officer, during the recovery. Regarding the non-filling of the CFCL form, the Court acknowledged it as a procedural requirement but clarified that its absence doesn’t nullify the case, as procedural law comprises part of the overall legal framework.
The detailed judgment delves into the procedural compliance, affirming that the law doesn’t mandate the reliance solely on independent witnesses to prove NDPS Act charges. The Court specifically noted the competency of PW-3 and the significance of PW-7’s presence during the recovery. The judgment also addressed the delay in sending samples for examination, deeming it non-fatal to the prosecution case.
Conclusion: In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Jagwinder Singh vs State of Punjab provides a significant precedent on NDPS Act evidence standards. The decision clarifies that proving charges under the NDPS Act doesn’t solely depend on the presence of independent witnesses and underscores the importance of procedural compliance. The dismissal of the appeal reinforces the lower courts’ findings, emphasizing that the absence of certain procedural elements, like the CFCL form, doesn’t invalidate the case when overall compliance with the NDPS Act is maintained. This ruling holds implications for similar cases, offering guidance on the evidentiary requirements under the NDPS Act. The order, dated November 2, 2023, by Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Aravind Kumar, signifies the conclusion of the legal proceedings, with pending applications also disposed of.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. The appellant seeks to impugn the judgment rendered by the High Court confirming the conviction delivered by the Trial Court which held that the appellant was guilty of an offence under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘the NDPS Act’).
3. The appellant along with others were found in possession of poppy husk amounting to 54 Kgs. Recovery was made from the car in which the appellant was traveling. After the seizure was done in pursuance to the procedure contemplated under the NDPS Act, appropriate orders have been obtained from the Judicial Magistrate to de-seal the contraband and the samples were subsequently sent for examination. The Trial Court convicted the appellant along with others which was subsequently confirmed by the High Court.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that despite efforts made to contact the appellant, no instructions were received. However, we pointed out to the learned counsel that inasmuch as the Vakalatnama filed on behalf of the appellant, she has to proceed with the matter, which she accordingly did.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appellant was not in conscious possession of the contraband and that the CFCL form was not filled up at the place of recovery. Only the police witnesses have been examined and, therefore in the absence of any independent witness, the appellant ought not to have been convicted. It was also contended that the procedure contemplated under the NDPS Act, with respect to seizure and recovery, has not been complied with. The appellant was merely traveling in the car and, therefore, he ought not to have charged and convicted.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the State submits that both the Courts below considered all the submissions and concurrently held that the appellant is liable to be convicted. The Trial Court had only imposed a minimum sentence of 10 years of rigorous imprisonment on the appellant.
7. 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.
8. Further, the delay in sending the sample for FSL report, in our considered view, is not fatal to the prosecution case. In any case, orders have been obtained from the Jurisdictional Magistrate for undertaking the said exercise which has attained finality.
9. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any perversity in the ultimate conclusion arrived at by the High Court.
10. The appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
……………………………………………………J.
[M.M. SUNDRESH]
……………………………………………………J.
[ARAVIND KUMAR]
NEW DELHI;
2nd NOVEMBER, 2023
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
The appeal stands dismissed in terms of the signed order. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
