2021 INSC 0831
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  1605  OF 2021
(   ARISING OUT OF  SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. OF 8425 OF 2021)
Kallu Khan  …Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan            ...Respondent
JUDGMENT
J.K. Maheshwari, J .
Leave granted.
2.             This   appeal   has   been   filed   arising   out   of   the   judgment
dated   25.11.2017,   passed   by   High   Court   of   Judicature   of
Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur, in Criminal Appeal No. 491 of 2012,
whereby,   the   order   dated   21.04.2012   passed   by   Special   Judge
(N.D.P.S.),   Jhalawar,   Rajasthan   in   Sessions   Case   No.   49   of
2011 convicting the appellant under Sections 8 & 21 of Narcotic
Drugs   and   Psychotropic   Substance   Act   (hereinafter   referred   to
as   "NDPS   Act")   and   sentenced   to   undergo   rigorous
imprisonment   for   10   years   along   with   fine   of   Rs.   1,00,000/­
1

(One  Lakh)   has   been   affirmed.   While  confirming   the   conviction
and sentence, the High Court reduced the default sentence from
2 years to 1 year. 
3. The   facts   briefly   put,   as   per   prosecution   allegations,   on
the date of incident i.e. 24.04.2011, S.I. Pranveer Singh (P.W. 6)
Station   In­charge   of   Bhawani   Mandi   Police   Station   alongwith
constables   Preetam   Singh   (P.W.   1),   Sardar   Singh   (P.W.   2)   and
Rajendra   Prasad   (P.W.   8),   was   on   routine   patrolling   at   around
6:05   a.m.   from   Sulia   Chowki   to   Sunel   and   reached   Jhokadia.
While returning from Jhokadia to Bhawani Mandi, they saw the
accused   Kallu   Khan   riding     an   unnumbered   motorcycle   and
coming  from opposite direction. On seeing the police patrolling
vehicle,       Kallu   Khan   turned   back   and   tried   to   ran   away.
Suspecting   his   conduct,   the   police   party     apprehended   and
questioned him. In enquiry about his behaviour, accused Kallu
Khan   did   not   give   satisfactory   reply.   On   having   doubt,   S.I.
Pranveer Singh (P.W. 6) ordered constable Preetam Singh (P.W.
1)   to   arrange   independent   witness   for   search   of   accused   Kallu
Khan   and   also   of   the   motorcycle   which   he   was   riding.
2

Constable Preetam Singh (P.W.1) submitted a report to him that
independent   witness   could   not   be   found   immediately   for
search.   Thereon,   looking   to   the   conduct   of   accused,     S.I.
Pranveer   Singh   (P.W.   6)   obtained   consent   from   Constable
Sardar   Singh   (P.W.   2)   &   Constable   Rajendra   Prasad   (P.W.   8)
and made them witness for  the search of the vehicle.
4. Thereafter,   the   accused   Kallu   Khan   was   given   notice
under   Section   50   of   NDPS   Act   informing   that     he   could   be
searched   before   a   Gazette   Officer   or   Magistrate,   on   which,   he
gave   his   consent   for   search   by   S.H.O..     After   consent,   the
search   of   his   body   as   well   as   of   motorcycle   was   conducted.
During   the   personal   search,   no   incriminating   substance   was
recovered   from   him,   whereas,   in   search   of   motorcycle,   a
polythene   bag   beneath   the   seat   of   motorcycle   was   found,
containing   brown   substance   resembling   smack   which   was
burnt   on   a   paper   and,   from   its   smell,   it   was   confirmed   to   be
smack.   The   substance   weighed   900gms,   out   of   which,   two
samples   were   prepared,   sealed   and   marked   as   ‘A’   &   ‘B’
respectively.   The   remaining   substance   was   put   in   another   bag
3

marked as ‘C’ and sealed, whereafter, accused Kallu Khan was
taken   to   Police   Station   and   an   offence   under   Sections   8   &   21
was   registered   as   Crime   No.   130/2011     against   him   and   the
investigation   was   conducted.   On   completion   of   investigation,
charge­sheet   was   filed   against   accused   Kallu   Khan   before   the
Court of Special Judge, where charges under Sections 8 & 21 of
NDPS   Act   were   framed.   The   accused   abjured   his   guilt   and
demanded trial taking defence of false implication. 
5. The   Trial   Court   after   recording   the   evidence,   found
strength   in   the   testimony   of   Constable   Preetam   Singh   (PW1),
Constable Sardar  Singh  (PW2),  S.I.   Pranveer   Singh  (PW6) and
Constable   Rajendra   Prasad   (PW8)   and   held     that   the
prosecution has proved   its case beyond reasonable doubt. The
Trial Court further noted that, the place of incident is on public
road   which   leads   from   Bhawani   Mandi   to   Sunel.   It   is   said
despite   efforts,   due   to   non­availability     of   independent
witnesses, S.I.   Pranveer Singh (P.W.6)   conducted proceedings
of search after consent and seizure being  temporarily posted as
In­charge of Bhawani Mandi Police Station   and completed the
4

same.     It   is   observed   that   though   the   search   appears   to   have
been done superficially, but evidence of police personnel cannot
be   discarded   merely   because   they   are   departmental   witnesses.
There was no enmity  of police personnel with accused and   no
interest   of   any   witness     was   shown   in   the   matter.   Thus,   the
Trial   Court   with   those   findings   convicted   accused   Kallu   Khan
for   the   offences   under   Sections   8   &   21   of   NDPS   Act   and
directed   to   undergo   rigorous   imprisonment   for   ten   years   with
fine   of   Rs.   1,00,000/­   and   in   default,     to   undergo   simple
imprisonment for two years.
6. The   appellant   preferred   appeal   before   High   Court   and
primarily   rest   his   challenge   on   the   grounds;   firstly,   S.I.
Pranveer   Singh   (PW6)   was   not   posted   as   Station   In­charge   of
the concerned police station,  as such he was not authorized to
conduct search & seizure. Secondly, no independent witnesses
were associated in the search and seizure proceedings, however
the     said     recovery   is   vitiated.   Thirdly,   there   are   glaring
contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses.  
5

7. Upon   hearing,   the   High   Court   was   unimpressed   of     the
pleas raised by the accused/appellant and even on reappraisal
of   evidence,     concurred   with     the   findings   of   Trial   Court.     The
High   Court   said,     it   was   a   case   of   chance   recovery   while     the
accused in transit was suspected by  the police  patrolling party
on   a     public   road,   hence,   recovery   proceedings   would   be
governed   by   Section   43   of   NDPS   Act.   Nonetheless,   the   High
Court   reduced   the   default   sentence   from   two   years   without
disturbing the findings of conviction and  main sentence.
8. On perusal of the proceedings of this case, it reveals that
on   29.10.2021,   looking   to   the   surrender   certificate,     it   was
observed   the appellant had already served the   sentence of 10
years.   As the appellant had already served the main sentence,
however   directed   to   be   released   on   interim   bail.       The   report
further     indicate   that   the   appellant  had    been   released  on   bail
on   24.04.2021   on   depositing   the   amount   of   fine   of   Rs.  1   lakh.
Thus,   the   sentence,   as   awarded,   by   the   Trial   Court   and
confirmed   by   the   High   Court,   had   already   been   served   by   the
appellant, depositing  the amount of fine.
6

9. Mr.   C.N.   Srieekumar,   learned   senior   counsel
representing   the   appellant   has   strenuously     urged   that   in   the
present   case,   the   search   and   seizure   was   conducted   by   an
unauthorized   officer   with   the   help   of   the   police   witnesses
without   independent witnesses. He has placed reliance on the
judgment   of   this   Court   in   Union   of   India   vs.   Mohanlal   and
another   (2016)3   SCC   379   and   contends   that   in   absence   of
handling   and   disposal   of   seized   narcotic   drags/psychotropic
substances,   the   danger   of   re­circulation   of   seized   contraband
back   into   the   system   cannot   be   ruled   out.     Learned   senior
counsel   would   further   argue   that   in   the   present   case,   the
prosecution   has   not   proved   its   case   beyond   reasonable   doubt.
The   procedure,   as   contemplated   under   Section   50(1)   of   NDPS
Act, has not been followed. The ownership of the vehicle is not
of the  accused,  however     the link  of the vehicle in  commission
of the offence   qua accused is missing.   The contraband article
has not been produced in the court during evidence.   With the
said contention,     it is   argued   that the   Trial Court and High
Court     have   committed     error   to   prove     the   guilt   of   the
7

appellant, and sentenced him for the charges under Sections 8
& 21 of NDPS Act.  
10. On   the   other   hand,   learned   counsel   representing   the
State     contends     that   it   is   not   a   case   based   on   recovery   of
contraband   from     personal   search   of   the   accused,   in   fact,
recovery   is   from   the   motor   cycle   i.e.   the   vehicle   used   in
commission   of   offence.       Therefore,   the   mandatory   compliance
of    Section 50 of NDPS Act do not attract in the case.  Reliance
is   placed   on   a   Constitutional   Bench   judgment   of   this   Court   in
Vijaysinh   Chandubha   Jadeja   vs.   State   of   Gujarat   (2011)   1
SCC   609.     Reliance   has   further   been   placed     on   the   case   of
State of Punjab vs. Baljinder Singh  (2019) 10 SCC 473.  It  is
urged   that   the   recovery   is   a   chance   recovery   from   the   motor
cycle,   used   in   the   commission   of   offence,   therefore,   the
provisions of Section 43 of NDPS Act would attract.  Reliance is
placed on the judgment of this Court in  S.K. Raju vs. State of
West   Bengal   (2018)   9   SCC   708.       As   per   Section   43   of   NDPS
Act,   Pranveer   Singh­PW6   is     competent   for   the   search   and
seizure and  the High Court has rightly recorded the findings on
8

this   issue.     It   is   also   contended   that   in   case,   the   search   and
seizure is otherwise proved, production of contraband article  in
court is not required. It is   urged that   conviction based on the
police   witnesses without having an independent witness is not
always     fatal.     In   support   of   the   said   contention,   reliance   is
placed   on   the   judgment   of   this   Court   in   Surinder   Kumar   vs.
State of Punjab  (2020) 2 SCC 563 to urge that merely because
the   prosecution   did   not   examine   any   independent   witness
would   not   necessarily   lead   to   conclusion   that   accused   was
falsely implicated.   In the said judgment, law laid down in   the
case   of   Jarnail Singh vs. State of Punjab   (2011) 3 SCC 521
has   been   re­affirmed.     It   is   lastly     urged   that   the   concurrent
findings are not normally  required to be interfered with unless
there   is   a   perversity.     Reliance   is   placed   on   the   judgments   of
this   Court   in   State   of   U.P.   vs.   Krishna   Gopal   (1988)   4   SCC
302,   Ganga   Kumar   Srivastava   vs.   State   of   Bihar   (2005)   6
SCC   211,   Jarnail   Singh   (supra)   and   S.K.   Sakkar   vs.   State
of West Bengal  (2021) 4 SCC 483.   In  reply to the contention
of   the   appellant   regarding   not   having   any   connection   of   the
9

vehicle   with   the   accused   to   prove   his   guilt,     reliance   is   placed
on   a   judgment   of   this   Court   in   Rizwan   Khan   vs.   State   of
Chhattisgarh  (2020) 9 SCC 627,  however prayed for dismissal
of appeal.
11. After   hearing   and   on  perusal   of   record   and   the   evidence
brought,   it   is   apparent   that     on   apprehending     the   accused,
while   making   search   of   the   motor   cycle,   900   gm   of   smack   was
seized   to   which   seizure   and   sample   memos   were   prepared,     as
proved by the departmental witnesses.  In the facts of the case at
hand, where the   search and seizure was made from the vehicle
used,   by   way   of   chance   recovery     from   public   road,   the
provisions  of  Section  43  of  the  NDPS  Act  would  apply.      In  this
regard,   the   guidance  may   be   taken     from  the   judgments   of   this
Court  in  S. K. Raju  (supra) and  S.K. Sakkar  (supra). However,
the   recovery   made   by   Pranveer   Singh   (PW6)   cannot   be   doubted
in the facts of this case.
12. Now   reverting   to   the   contention     that   the   motor   cycle
seized   in   commission   of   offence     does   not   belong   to   accused,
10

however   seizure of the contraband from the motor cycle cannot
be connected to prove the guilt of accused.    The Trial Court  on
appraisal   of   the     testimony   of     witnesses,   Constable   Preetam
Singh (PW1), Constable Sardar Singh (PW2), S.I. Pranveer Singh
(PW6) and ConstableRajendra Prasad (PW8), who were members
of   the patrolling team and the witnesses of the seizure,  proved
beyond   reasonable   doubt,   when   they   were   on   patrolling,   the
appellant came driving the seized vehicle from opposite side.  On
seeing   the   police   vehicle,     he   had   taken   back   the   motor   cycle
which he was riding. However, the police team apprehended and
intercepted   the   accused   and   made   the   search   of     vehicle,   in
which the seized contraband smack  was found beneath the seat
of   the   vehicle.     However,     while   making   search   at   public   place,
the   contraband   was   seized   from   the   motor   cycle   driven   by   the
accused.   Thus,     recovery of the contraband     from   the   motor
cycle   of   the   appellant   was   a   chance   recovery   on   a   public   road.
As   per   Section   43   of   NDPS   Act,     any   officer   of   any   of   the
departments, specified in Section 42, is having power of seizure
and   arrest   of   the   accused   from   a   public   place,   or   in   transit   of
11

any   narcotic   drug   or   psychotropic   substance   or   controlled
substance.     The   said   officer   may   detain     in   search   any   person
whom   he     has   reason   to   believe   that     he   has   committed   an
offence     punishable   under   the   provisions   of   the     NDPS   Act,   in
case   the   possession   of   the   narcotic   drug   or   psychotropic
substance   appears   to   be   unlawful.   Learned   senior   counsel
representing   the   appellant   is   unable   to   show   any   deficiency   in
following the procedure or perversity to the findings recorded by
the Trial Court,  affirmed by the High Court.  The seizure  of the
motor   cycle   from   him   is   proved   beyond   reasonable   doubt,
therefore,   the   question of ownership of vehicle   is not relevant.
In the similar set of facts, in  the case of   Rizwan Khan  (supra),
this Court   observed the ownership of the vehicle is immaterial.
Therefore, the argument as advanced by   learned senior counsel
is of no substance and meritless. 
13. At   this   state,   the   argument   advanced   by   the   appellant
regarding   non­production   of   contraband   in   the   court     due   to
which  benefit of doubt ought to be given  to accused, is required
to be adverted to.     In the case of   State of Rajasthan vs. Sahi
12

Ram   (2019) 10 SCC 649, this Court held that when the seizure
of     material   is   proved   on   record   and   is   not   even   disputed,   the
entire contraband material     need not be placed on record.   It is
not a case in which the appellant has proved beyond reasonable
doubt   that   while   sending   the   samples   for   forensic   tests,   seals
were not intact or the procedure has been materially not followed
by   protecting     the   seized   substance   or   was   not   stored   properly,
as specified in the case of   Mohan Lal   (supra) in which case the
directions   were   given   to   be   followed   on   administrative   side.
However, in the facts of the case, the said judgment is not of any
help to appellant.
14. Similarly,   in   the   case   of   Than   Kumar     vs.   State   of
Haryana   (2020) 5 SCC  260, this Court observed that  if seizure
is   otherwise   proved   and   the   samples   taken   from   and   out   of
contraband   material   were   kept   intact;   the   report   of   forensic
expert   shows   potency,   nature   and   quality   of   contraband
material,  essential ingredients constituting offence are made out
and  the non­production of  contraband in the Court is not fatal.
As   discussed   above,   the   appellant   has   failed   to   show   that
13

findings   recorded   by   two   Courts     suffer   from   any   perversity   or
illegality on the said issue and  warrant interference 
15. Simultaneously,   the   arguments   advanced   by   the
appellant regarding non­compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act is
bereft of any merit because no   recovery of contraband from the
person   of   the   accused   has     been   made   to   which   compliance   of
the provision of Section 50 NDPS Act has to follow mandatorily.
In the present case, in the search of motor cycle at public  place,
the   seizure   of   contraband   was   made,   as   revealed.       Therefore,
compliance of Section 50 does not attract in the present case.  It
is  settled  in  the case of   Vijaysinh   (supra)  that in the  case of
personal   search   only,   the   provisions   of   Section   50   of   the   Act   is
required to be complied with but not in the case of vehicle as in
the   present   case,   following   the     judgments   of   Surinder   Kumar
(supra)   and   Baljinder   Singh   (supra).   Considering   the   facts   of
this   Court,   the   argument   of   non­compliance   of   Section   50   of
NDPS Act  advanced by the counsel is hereby repelled.
14

16. The issue raised regarding conviction solely relying upon
the   testimony   of   police   witnesses,   without   procuring   any
independent witness, recorded by the two courts, has also been
dealt with by this Court in the case of   Surinder Kumar   (supra)
holding   that   merely   because   independent   witnesses   were   not
examined, the conclusion could not be drawn that accused was
falsely   implicated.     Therefore,   the   said   issue   is   also   well­settled
and in particular, looking to the facts of the present case, when
the conduct of the accused was found suspicious and a chance
recovery from the vehicle used by him is made from public place
and   proved   beyond   reasonable   doubt,     the     appellant   cannot
avail   any   benefit   on   this   issue.   .     In   our   view,   the   concurrent
findings of the courts does not call for interference. 
17. It   is   to   observe   that   as   per   the   judgment   of   Krishna
Gopal   (supra),   it   is   held   that   interference   in   exercise   of   the
power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India can only be
called   for   when   the   judgment   of   the   lower   court   is   vitiated   by
gross error.   This Court is having an occasion to reconsider  the
said   issue   in   the   case   of   Ganga   Kumar   Srivastava     (supra),
15

whereby   it   is   settled     that   interference   can   be   made   when   a
question of law of general public importance arises or a decision
shocks   the conscience of the Court. It is   held that in case, the
finding   is   vitiated   by   any   error   of   law   or   procedure   or   found
contrary  to  the   principles  of  natural  justice,   and  misreading  of
the   evidence,   or   where   the   conclusions   of   the   High   Court   are
manifestly   perverse   and   unsupportable   from   the   evidence   on
record, interference under Article 136 can be called for.  The said
principle has again been reiterated in the case of  Jarnail Singh
(supra),   reaffirming   the   law   as   laid   down   in   Ganga   Kumar
Srivastava   (supra).   Recently   also,   in   the   case   of   S.K.   Sakkar
(supra),   this   Court   has   reaffirmed   the   issue   of   scope   of
interference in exercise of power by this Court  under Article 136
of the Constitution of India .
18. In   view   of   the   foregoing   discussion,   looking   to     the   facts
of   the   present   case,   in   our   considered   opinion,   the   findings
concurrently  recorded by the  Courts holding the accused guilty
for     the   charges   and   to   direct   him   to   undergo   sentence   as
16

prescribed,   do   not   suffer   from   any   perversity,   illegality,
warranting interference by this Court.  
19.   Accordingly,   we   do   not   find   any   merit   in   this   appeal.
Hence, it is dismissed.  As the appellant has already served   the
sentence so awarded and  released after deposit of the amount of
fine, therefore, no further directions need be issued.    
………………………….J.
[ INDIRA BANERJEE ]
……………………………J.
[ J.K. MAHESHWARI ]
NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 11, 2021.
  
17