LI Network
Published on: November 16, 2023 at 15:40 IST
The Supreme Court emphasized that the law does not demand the exclusive reliance on an independent witness to substantiate charges under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).
Justices M M Sundresh and Aravind Kumar conveyed this observation while deliberating on a case where the appellant faced charges under Section 15 of the NDPS Act for possessing 54 kgs of poppy husk, as determined by the trial court and subsequently upheld by the High Court.
The Appellant contended that only police witnesses were examined, and without an independent witness, conviction should not have occurred.
Additionally, the appellant argued that he was merely a passenger in the car, not in conscious possession of the contraband. The non-completion of the CFCL form at the recovery site and non-compliance with NDPS Act procedures regarding seizure and recovery were also raised as points of contention.
The State countered that the courts below had considered all submissions during the conviction, highlighting that the trial court had imposed the minimum sentence of 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.
The Supreme Court rejected the appellant’s contentions and declined to intervene in the High Court’s decision, stating:
“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.”
The Court emphasized the competence of PW-3 to gather evidence and noted that PW-7, a gazetted officer, was present during the recovery from the car.
The Court upheld the views of the lower courts, asserting that the non-filling of the CFCL form at the arrest and recovery site does not vitiate the case as it constitutes a part of procedural law.
Case Title: JAGWINDER SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2027 OF 2012
