News Update

CBDT explains what is 'tax effect' for purpose of filing appeal in cases beyond monetary limitsUS-UK coalition airstrikes at Houthis in Red Sea portPMK joins NDA; to share dais with PM at SalemUK begins hunt for sunken ship loaded with gold worth 4 bn poundsPrivacy at Stake: Evaluating Data Principal Rights in the DPDP Act 2023Delhi regains its title as world’s most polluted cityLitigation Management: CBDT revises instructions and monetary limits prescribed for filing appeal or SLP before courtsUnsettled borders and rise of China major challenges for defence forces, says Chief Anil ChauhanI-T- Rules of natural justice are contravened where notices of hearing are not sent to valid email addresses indicated by assessee & order passed in consequence thereto is invalidated : HCAmerican IRS Chief expects workforce to surpass one-lakh-mark in next 3 yrsI-T - Provisions of Section 148A clearly require that an assessee be granted opportunity of personal hearing & an order passed in non-compliance with this requirement stands vitiated: HCDeloitte LLP goes for restructuring to tamp down costsI-T - If no error is being found by AO qua acceptance and genuineness of transaction of assessee, then AO cannot initiate reopening, and if reopening is not permitted, then CIT cannot issue notice u/s 263: ITATNvidia unfolds powerful chip to retain edge in AI marketI-T - Additions framed u/s 68 were rightly quashed where the assessee has discharged onus of identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction : ITATTrump’s lawyer says Trump has not means to raise bond in USD 464 mn fraud caseI-T- Addition cannot be framed on account of unexplained cash credit, where assessee has recorded the sales in its books and there is no adverse finding qua stock and purchases: ITATFood scarcity: Gaza heading for mass deathsCX - Tax demands merits being quashed where based on oral statements but without permitting Assessee to cross examine the deponents & where also based on circumstantial statements: CESTATBJP decides to go with Chirag Paswan; trashes his uncle Pashupati Paras in BiharST - Being appellant a registered service provider and filing their Service Tax returns, demand cannot be raised on the basis of Form-26AS obtained from Income Tax Department: CESTATDubai Financial Centre frames rules to regulate digital assetsCus - Clearance of domestic household goods without proper clearance, does not warrant disproportionate penalty of Rs 50000/-, as the same is not a case of regular import by an IEC holder: CESTATCBDT directs income tax field offices to remain open on March 29, 30 & 31stCX - In so far as security services for their factory and trading premises was concerned, said services was directly connected with their business and hence, appellant was entitled for credit of service tax paid: CESTAT
 
NDPS - Appellant picked up from his house and charged with carrying poppy - convicted under NDPS - more stringent punishment, more heavy is burden upon prosecution to prove offence: Supreme Court

By TIOL News Service

NEW DELHI, APRIL 24, 2015: THE case of prosecution is that on 27.07.1994, the police officials during patrolling, when talking with one Manjeet Singh-PW1 and Gamdur Singh-DW2, saw the suspicious 'fitter-rehra' (a vehicle) driven by the appellant. Police intercepted the vehicle and questioned the appellant about his whereabouts, and found some dubious bags lying in the vehicle. Before searching the bags, police intimated to the appellant that instead of being searched by police whether he wishes to be searched by a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate and the appellant declined to be searched by them and a consent memo (Ext.PA) was drawn. Then, the police in the presence of independent witnesses, i.e. Manjeet Singh and Gamdur Singh, conducted the search and during the search, three bags containing commercial quantity of poppy husk (120 kgms.) were recovered from the appellant's vehicle. Police seized the bags, took sample of 200 grams from each of the bag and sealed them separately, and then sealed the remaining quantity in separate parcels and deposited the same with MHC.

Prosecution to prove their case examined as many as six witnesses. Out of two independent witnesses in the case, Manjeet Singh-PW1 turned hostile and Gamdur Singh was won over by the defence and had been examined as defence witness DW2. Defence examined one more witness, viz. Jaswant Singh-DW1.

The Sessions Court, after considering the evidence held that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and thereby convicted the appellant under Section 15 of the NDPS Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.

On appeal, the High Court held that the evidence of PW6-Inspector Raghbir Singh and PW2-H.C.Suraj Mal is unimpeachable and vide impugned judgment dated 10.12.2007 confirmed the conviction of the appellant and dismissed the appeal.

Challenging his conviction, the appellant has approached the Supreme Court with a contention that he has been falsely implicated in the case and that he was brought from his house and was put behind the bars.

The counsel for the appellant contended that the case of the prosecution is based solely on the testimony of official witnesses PW2 and PW6 and much weightage ought not to have been attached to their testimony, especially by discarding the testimony of both the defence witnesses. It was submitted that since both the independent witnesses did not support the prosecution story, the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and this material aspect has been ignored by the courts below. Appellant also alleges that non-compliance of mandatory provisions under Sections 50 and 52 of the NDPS Act vitiates the alleged recovery of contraband.

The counsel for the respondent-State has supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act has been duly complied with and the concurrent findings of the courts below recording the verdict of conviction cannot be interfered with.

The Supreme Court observed,

The High Court discarded the evidence of PW1 and DW2 observing that the independent witnesses hail from the same village to which accused belongs and the accused might have approached the witnesses through respectables of the village to resile from his statement. That apart, the High Court also observed that both the independent witnesses did not explain the circumstances or compulsions in which they had to sign the blank papers. The reasoning of the High Court is based more on assumptions than on acceptable basis. When PW1 and DW2 have asserted that they have signed only the blank papers, the courts below ought to have considered them in proper perspective.

For recording the conviction, the Sessions Court as well as the High Court mainly relied on the testimony of official witnesses who made the recovery, i.e. H.C. Suraj Mal-PW2 and Inspector Raghbir Singh-PW6, and found them sufficiently strengthening the recovery of the possession from the appellant.

The manner in which the alleged recovery has been made does not inspire confidence and undue credence has been given to the testimony of official witnesses, who are generally interested in securing the conviction. In peculiar circumstances of the case, it may not be possible to find out independent witnesses at all places at all times. Independent witnesses who live in the same village or nearby villages of the accused are at times afraid to come and depose in favour of the prosecution.

Though it is well-settled that a conviction can be based solely on the testimony of official witnesses, condition precedent is that the evidence of such official witnesses must inspire confidence. In the present case, it is not as if independent witnesses were not available. Independent witnesses PW1 and another independent witness examined as DW2 has spoken in one voice that the accused person was taken from his residence. In such circumstances, the High Court ought not to have overlooked the testimony of independent witnesses, especially when it casts doubt on the recovery and the genuineness of the prosecution version.

It is to be pointed out that the prosecution misdirected itself by unnecessarily focusing on Section 50 of the NDPS Act, when the fact is that the recovery has been made not from the person of the appellant but from the fitter-rehra which was allegedly driven by the appellant and, thus, Section 50 of the NDPS Act had no application at all.

Jaswant Singh, who is a Sarpanch of the village and was examined as DW1, has supported the defence version that the appellant was taken away by the police from his home and he was falsely implicated. When the defence has taken the specific stand that the appellant was taken from his house by the police and that stand has been corroborated by the testimony of DW1, the prosecution ought to have adduced cogent evidence that the alleged fitter-rehra on which the appellant was alleged to be carrying 120 kilograms of poppy husk belongs to the appellant. Failure to adduce the evidence connecting the appellant with the fitter-rehra that the ownership/possession of fitter- rehra with the appellant is fatal to the prosecution case, benefit of which ought to have been given to the accused.

Both the Sessions Court and the High Court concurrently held that the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act have been duly complied with. Compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act will come into play only in the case of personal search of the accused and not of some baggage like a bag, article or container, etc. which the accused may be carrying ought to be searched.

In the present case, since the vehicle was searched and the contraband was seized from the vehicle, compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act was not required. In the absence of independent evidence connecting the appellant with the fitter-rehra, mere compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act by itself would not be sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant.

It is a well-settled principle of the criminal jurisprudence that more stringent the punishment, the more heavy is the burden upon the prosecution to prove the offence. When the independent witnesses PW1 and DW2 have not supported the prosecution case and the recovery of the contraband has not been satisfactorily proved, the conviction of the appellant under Section 15 of the NDPS Act cannot be sustained.

The conviction of the appellant and the sentence imposed on him is set aside and this appeal is allowed. Fine amount of Rs.1,00,000 /-, if paid, is ordered to be refunded to the appellant. The appellant is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith unless required in any other case.

(See 2015-TIOL-84-SC-NDPS)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri Shailendra Kumar, Trustee, TIOL Trust, giving welcome speech at TIOL Awards 2023




Shri M C Joshi, Former Chairman, CBDT




Address by Shri Buggana Rajendranath, Hon'ble Finance Minister of Andhra Pradesh at TIOL Awards 2023