2007 (5) TMI 599 - SC - Customs

Whether the conviction of appellant Ravindran was not justified in view of non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 42(2) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985?

Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
2. Compliance with Section 50 of the Act.
3. Examination of independent witnesses.
4. Voluntariness and reliability of confessional statements.
5. Chemical Analyst's report on the substance.
6. Sufficiency of evidence against the accused.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Compliance with Section 42 of the Act:
The appellants argued that the mandatory provisions of Section 42(2) of the Act were not complied with. The High Court rejected this argument, holding that Section 42 was not applicable to the facts of the case as the arrest and seizure occurred at a bus stand, not in a building, conveyance, or enclosed place. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that Section 43 of the Act, which does not require written information or reporting to a superior officer, was applicable. The Court found no substance in the argument regarding non-compliance with Section 42.

2. Compliance with Section 50 of the Act:
The appellants contended that the provisions of Section 50, which are mandatory, were not followed. The Supreme Court noted that the appellant was carrying a plastic bag, and according to the precedent set in State of H.P. vs. Pawan Kumar, Section 50 does not apply to bags or containers. Therefore, the Court held that Section 50 was not attracted to the facts of this case. Additionally, the argument that the appellant was not informed of his legal right to be searched in the presence of a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer was dismissed, as Section 50 was deemed inapplicable.

3. Examination of Independent Witnesses:
The appellants argued that the failure to examine the two independent witnesses who were present during the search was fatal to the prosecution's case. The Supreme Court held that while the non-examination of independent witnesses might require the evidence of official witnesses to be scrutinized with caution, it does not necessarily invalidate the prosecution's case. The Court found that the evidence had been critically scrutinized and found no reason to disagree with the lower courts' findings.

4. Voluntariness and Reliability of Confessional Statements:
The appellants claimed that their confessions were not voluntary and had been retracted. The Supreme Court reviewed the material on record and the concurrent findings of the lower courts, concluding that the confessions were voluntary and supported by other reliable evidence. The Court found no merit in the argument that the confessions were involuntary.

5. Chemical Analyst's Report:
The appellants challenged the Chemical Analyst's report, arguing that it did not specify the proportion of Diazepam in the sample. The Supreme Court noted that the quantity of Diazepam found (1.528 kilograms) was well above the threshold for a commercial quantity (500 grams), making the exact proportion irrelevant for sentencing purposes. The Court dismissed this argument.

6. Sufficiency of Evidence Against the Accused:
For appellant Ravindran, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding no merit in any of the arguments presented. For appellant Peter John, the Court noted that his conviction was primarily based on his own retracted confession and the confession of a co-accused, Hiralal, who had been acquitted. The Court held that the benefit of doubt extended to Hiralal should also apply to Peter John, as there was insufficient reliable evidence to uphold his conviction. Consequently, Peter John's appeal was allowed, and his conviction and sentence were set aside.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of appellant Ravindran, upholding his conviction and sentence. However, the appeal of appellant Peter John was allowed, and he was acquitted of all charges due to insufficient evidence.

← Previous Next →