/2022 INSC 0760/
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 871 OF 2021
SANJEET KUMAR SINGH
@ MUNNA KUMAR SINGH                                    …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH                                …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
V. Ramasubramanian, J.
1. Challenging   his   conviction   for   an   offence   punishable   under
Section   20(b)(ii)(C)   of   the   Narcotic   Drugs   and   Psychotropic
Substances   Act,   1985   ( hereinafter   referred   to   as   the   ‘Act’ )   and   the
sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years together with a fine
of Rs.1 lakh imposed upon him by the Special Court and confirmed
by the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Accused No.1 has come up with
the above appeal.
1

2. We have  heard Mr.  Somnath  Padhan,  learned  counsel for   the
appellant   and   Mr.   Sourav   Roy,   learned   Deputy   AG   for   the
respondent State.
3. The   case   of   the   prosecution   was   that   on   31.05.2014,   the
Station House Officer ( SHO for short ) of Chakarbhata Police Station
received   a   secret   information   that   the   appellant   and   his   friend
Reena   Das,   were   carrying   ganja   in   the   dickey   of   a   car   bearing
registration   no.CG­04HA­4850   and   were   travelling   from   Raipur   to
Pendra Road; that the SHO recorded this information in  Rojnamcha
Sanha , prepared   Mukhbir  Suchana , forwarded the  said information
to the higher officer, proceeded to the spot, stopped the car, served
a notice under Section 50 of the Act, conducted a search and found
47.370 Kgs. of  ganja  kept in three bags in the dickey of the car; that
after  weighing the contraband and preparing   Panchnama,   the SHO
collected   samples   from   each   of   the   three   bags,   sent   them   to
Forensic Science Laboratory (‘ FSL’ for short ) and after receipt of the
Report,   filed   a   charge­sheet   against   the   appellant   as   well   as   his
friend   Reena   Das   for   an   offence   punishable   under   Section   20(b)   of
the Act.
2

4. The   prosecution   examined   seven   witnesses.   Two   independent
witnesses were examined as court witnesses CWs 1 and 2.  
5. By a judgment dated 10.05.2017, the Special Court convicted
the   appellant   for   the   offence   under   Section   20(b)(ii)(C)   of   the   Act,
and   imposed   a   sentence   of   rigorous   imprisonment   of   10   years.
However,   the   co­accused   Reena   Das   was   acquitted   by   the   Special
Court.
6. The State did not file any appeal against the acquittal of Reena
Das,   who   was   A­2.   But   the   appellant   filed   an   appeal   on   the   file   of
the   High   Court   of   Chhattisgarh,   Bilaspur.   The   appeal   was
dismissed by a judgment dated 01.10.2019. Therefore, A­1 who has
suffered concurrent convictions has come up with the above appeal.
7. The   Special   Court,   for   coming   to   the   conclusion   that   the
appellant   was   guilty   of   the   offence,   relied   extensively   upon   the
testimony   of   Mr.   N.L.   Dhritlahre,   Deputy   Superintendent   of   Police,
who   acted   both   as   the   informant   and   as   the   Investigating   Officer
(‘ I.O.’ for short ) and who was examined as PW­7. The Special Court
found that PW­7 had followed the procedure prescribed in Sections
43 and 49 of the Act and that his testimony remained unshaken.
3

8. Though   PW­7   claimed   that   the   search   and   the   seizure   was
conducted in  the  presence of  two  independent  witnesses examined
as   CW­1   and   CW­2,   these   two   witnesses   claimed   ignorance   of   the
entire   operation.   Therefore,   the   Special   Court   came   to   the
conclusion that the testimony of PW­7 was not corroborated by the
evidence of independent witnesses. 
9. However,   the   Special   Court   came   to   the   conclusion   that   the
entries   made   by   PW­7   and   the   documents   prepared   by   him   both
before   and   after   the   search   and   seizure,   corroborated   his   oral
testimony   and   that   therefore   the   guilt   of   the   appellant   stood
established beyond reasonable doubt, even without corroboration.
10. But,   interestingly,   the   Special   Court   acquitted   A­2   namely
Reena   Das   on   the   ground,   (i)   that   though   in   the   Daily   Register   of
Exhibit   P­12   and   the   Memo   of   Information,   the   name   of   A­2   was
mentioned,   PW­7   did   not   mention   her   name   in   his   testimony;
(ii)   that   the   notice   under   Section   50   was   not   served   on   A­2;   and
(iii)   that   there   was   no   proof   beyond   doubt   to   show   that   the   seized
contraband was under the possession and the knowledge of A­2.  
4

11. As   we   have   stated   earlier,   the   State   did   not   file   an   appeal
against   the   acquittal   of   A­2.   But   the   High   Court   held   that   the
evidence   of   PW­7   remained   unshaken   even   during   cross­
examination and that there was no reason to disbelieve his version.
The   High   Court   also   held   that   the   Head   Constable   and   the
Constable examined as PWs 3 and 4 corroborated the statement of
PW­7 with regard to the compliance of the requirements of Sections
42   and   57   of   the   Act.   Though   an   argument   was   raised   before   the
High Court on behalf of the appellant that the samples sent to FSL
were not part of the seized contraband, it was rejected by the High
Court on the basis of the cogent testimony of PW­7. This is how the
High Court confirmed the conviction of the appellant as well as the
sentence imposed upon him.
12. Assailing   the   concurrent   judgments   of   the   Special   Court   and
the   High   Court,   it   was   contended   by   the   learned   counsel   for   the
appellant,   (i)   that   the   informant   and   the   I.O.   happened   to   be   the
same person;   (ii)   that the independent witnesses namely CW­1 and
CW­2   did   not   support   the   case   of   the   prosecution,   thereby   leaving
the testimony of PW­7 uncorroborated;   (iii)  that when the appellant
5

and the co­accused were alleged in the charge­sheet to be travelling
in the same car from which  ganja  was seized, the acquittal of one of
them and the conviction of the other, on the basis of the very same
testimony of PW­7 cannot be sustained; and   (iv)   that the principles
laid   down   in   a   series   of   judgments   of   this   Court   have   not   been
followed   by   the   Special   Court   and   the   High   Court.   The   learned
counsel   for   the   appellant   placed   reliance   specifically   upon   the
decisions of this Court in  Ajmer Singh  vs.   State of Haryana 1
  and
Mohinder Singh   vs.   State of Punjab 2
.
13. As regards the testimony of PW­7, on which the Special Court
and   the   High   Court   placed   heavy   reliance   and   complete   faith,   the
learned counsel for the appellant raised the following contentions:­
 There are several omissions in his evidence;
 He   arrested   both   the   accused   and   also   charge­sheeted
them, but admitted that there was no search warrant. 
 He further stated that photograph of the vehicle was not
in the list of Final report and Crime Number was not mentioned in
photograph of car;
 He   was   silent   about   presence   of   CWs   i.e.   independent
witnesses and those independent witnesses pleaded ignorance;
1   (2010) 3 SCC 746
2   (2018) 11 SCC 570
6

 Even   property   seizure   memo   was   not   signed   by   accused
and witnesses and there was no stamping. This is also admitted by
him;
 He   admitted   that   he   had   not   recorded   the   statement   of
the actual owner of the vehicle, which is a fundamental flaw in the
investigation;
 No notice U/S 50 NDPS Act was sent to Reena Das (A­2).
Except   in   the   FIR   and   Charge   Sheet,   name   of   Reena   Das   was   not
mentioned anywhere i.e. consent letter, memo of consent, memo of
searching,   memo   of   seizure/recovery   of   contraband   substance,
memo of identification of materials, memo of physical verification of
weighing   machine,   memo   of   weighing   of   contraband   substance,
memo of sample weighing of intoxicated materials etc.; 
 But   he   denied   in   the   cross   examination,   the   suggestion
that lady was not seated in the vehicle; and
 Time mentioned varied from document to document.
14. The   learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   also   raised   an   issue
about   the   ownership   of   the   car   and   highlighted   the   fact   that   the
owner   namely,   Bhumika   Patel   (PW­4)   was   not   even   interrogated.
But   we   do   not   think   the   ownership   of   the   car   was   of   any   material
significance.   Therefore,   we   are   not   dealing   with   the   same
elaborately.
7

15. In   response   to   the   contentions   raised   on   behalf   of   the
appellant, it was argued by the learned Deputy AG for the State:­
 That the NDPS Act is a complete Code in itself;
 That once the procedure enumerated in Sections 42, 43,
49   &   50   are   scrupulously   followed,   it   was   for   the   accused,   from
whose   possession   the   substance   is   recovered,   to   explain   how   he
came into possession;
That   as   held   by   this   Court   in   Mukesh   Singh   vs.   State
(Narcotic   Branch   of   Delhi) 3
,   it   is   not   always   necessary   to
corroborate  the  testimony   of  police officials,  through   the  testimony
of independent witnesses;

That   as   held   by   this   Court   in   Dharampal   Singh   vs.
State   of   Punjab 4
,   lack   of   independent   witness   is   not   fatal   to   the
case of the prosecution;

That   by   the   same   analogy   it   was   held   by   this   Court   in
Rizwan   Khan   vs.   State   of   Chhattisgarh 5
,   that   the   independent
witnesses   turning   hostile,   cannot   be   a   ground   for   acquittal   under
the NDPS Act;
 That   the   protection   under   Section   50   of   the   Act   is
available only  to the search of the body  of a person and not to the
search   of   a   vehicle   or   place,   as   held   by   this   Court   in   State   of
Punjab   vs.  Baljinder Singh and Ors . 6
;
3   (2020) 10 SCC 120
4   (2010) 9 SCC 608
5   (2020) 9 SCC 627
6   (2019) 10 SCC 473
8

 That   since   the   recovery   was   made   in   this   case   from   the
boot   of   the   car,   Section   50   had   no   application   and   hence   the
acquittal of the co­accused was also of no consequence;
 That the question whether the informant can be I.O. is no
longer   res   integra   in   view   of   the   decision   of   this   Court   in   Mukesh
Singh  (supra);
 That   once   possession   is   proved   under   Section   54,   the
accused   is   presumed   to   be   guilty   of   the   offence,   in   view   of   the
presumption under Section 54 of the Act; and 
 That   therefore   the   concurrent   findings   of   the   Courts
below need no interference.
16. We   have   carefully   considered   the   rival   contentions.   We   have
also   perused   the   records   of   the   Special   Court   including   the
testimony of witnesses.
17. At  the  outset   we  would  take   note   of  some  propositions   of  law
on which there can be no controversy. They are,   (i)   that as per the
decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in   Mukesh Singh
(supra),   the   fact   that   the   informant   also   happened   to   be   the
investigator,   may   not   by   itself   vitiate   the   investigation   as   unfair   or
biased;   (ii)   that   it   is   not   always   necessary   that   the   evidence   of   the
police witnesses have to be corroborated by independent witnesses,
9

as held in  Dharampal Singh  and   Mukesh Singh  (supra);  (iii)  that
the   independent   witnesses   turning   hostile   need   not   necessarily
result   in   the   acquittal   of   the   accused,   when   the   mandatory
procedure   is   followed   and   the   other   police   witnesses   speak   in   one
voice   as   held   in   Rizwan   Khan   (supra);   and   (iv)   that   once   it   is
established   that   the   contraband   was   recovered   from   the   accused’s
possession, a presumption arises under Section 54.
18. But   if   the   Court   has   ­­   (i)   to   completely   disregard   the   lack   of
corroboration   of   the   testimony   of   police   witnesses   by   independent
witnesses;   and   (ii)   to   turn   a   Nelson’s   eye   to   the   independent
witnesses turning hostile, then the story of the prosecution should
be   very   convincing   and   the   testimony   of   the   official   witnesses
notably trustworthy. If independent   witnesses come up with a story
which   creates   a   gaping   hole   in   the   prosecution   theory,   about   the
very   search   and   seizure,   then   the   case   of   the   prosecution   should
collapse like a pack of cards. It is no doubt true that corroboration
by   independent   witnesses   is   not   always   necessary.   But   once   the
prosecution comes up with a story that the search and seizure was
conducted  in   the   presence  of   independent   witnesses  and   they   also
10

choose   to   examine   them   before   Court,   then   the   Court   has   to   see
whether   the   version   of   the   independent   witnesses   who   turned
hostile   is   unbelievable   and   whether   there   is   a   possibility   that   they
have become turncoats.
19. Let   us   see   in   the   case   on   hand   what   PW­7   stated   about   the
manner in which the witnesses were roped in. The relevant portion
of the testimony  (Chief Examination) of PW­7, where a  reference is
made to independent witnesses, is extracted as follows:
“(5) I got the information on 31.05.2014 at 16.50 Hrs. from
informant   that   the   one   silver   colour   Hyundai   Verna
Car   having   registration   no.C.G.­04­HA­4850   is   silver,
in   which,   Sanjeet   Kumar   Singh   @   Munna   Singh
resident   of   Kabir   Nagar,   Raipur   and   his   lady   friend
namely   Reena   Das   @   Manali   Das   resident   of   Kabir
Nagar,   Raipur   have   left   towards   Pendra   road   from
Raipur carrying huge quantity of cannabis in the truck
(Dikki) of Car for the purpose of sale, who would go via
Pandidiha   bypass   Road.     I   lodge   the   above   report   at
the serial no.1283 of Station Diary register maintained
at   Police   Station.     Today,   I   brought   the   Daily   Register
with   me.     The   Serial   No.1283   entered   in   the   Daily
Register   is   Exhibit   P­12   and   its   certified   copy   is
Exhibit  P­12 “C: I prepared the memo (Panchnama) of
the   information   of   informant   in   the   presences   of
witnesses   Virender   Kumar   Sahu   and   Baldev   Singh
Rajput.   The memo (Panchnama) of the information of
informant is Exhibit  P­13 and I had my signatures on
A   to   A   parts.     I   served   notice   for   the   purpose   of
summoning   to   the   witnesses.     The  notice  given   to
the witness Sunil Maldhani which is Exhibit C­14,
where   my   signatures   on   B   to   B   parts   and   the
notice   sent   to   the   witness   Firturam   Banware   for
11

appearing/presenting at the time of proceedings is
Exhibit  C­1,  on  which,  my  signatures   is  on  B  to  B
parts . 
xxx                               xxx                                xxx
(7) Thereafter, I made entry at serial no.1286 in the daily
register   maintained   at   Police   Station   about   the
departure   time   i.e.17.10   hrs.   along   with   constable
nos.444, 672 and woman constable no.981 for Bypass
Road   Tiwaripara   for   the   purpose   of   barricading   by
Government   vehicle.     I   also   took   the   documents   and
seal with me.   The in­charge namely A.S.I., Sharma of
Police   Assistant   Center,   Sakri   was   informed   and   the
witnesses   namely   Katti   Sunil   Kalwani   and   Firturam
Banware   were   also   taken   for   the   purpose   of
proceedings   and   in   this   connection,   I   made   entry   at
the serial no.1286 in daily register, which is Exhibit P­
17   and   the   certified   copy   of   the   same   is   Exhibit   P­17
“C”.
(8) I   prepared   the   memo   (Panchnama)   under   Section   50
N.D.P.S   Act   in   the   presences   of   witnesses   namely
Sunil   Maldhani   and   Firturam   Banjare,   which   is
Exhibit   C­2   and   on   which,   my   signatures   at   C   to   C
parts.
(9) Contraband   substance   in   three   plastic   bags   was
recovered   from   the   dickey   of   Car   having   registration
no.C.G.   –   04­   H.A   –   4850   in   possession   of   Sanjeet
Kumar   Singh,   seizure   is   Exh   C   5  where   my   signature
is at D to D Part.   When I see the bags kept in dickey
of the car by opening the stitches in presence of Sunil
Maldhani Firturam Banwane.”
20. In his cross­examination, PW­7 stated as follows:
“(22)   Both   the   witnesses   belong   to   Chakarbhata.   I   know
previously to both witnesses. I have sent the notices to
both witnesses in their names.  It is correct to say that
I   cannot   recall   today   that   through   whom,   the   above
notice was sent. It is also correct to say that I had sent
the   above   notice   at   17.10   Hrs.   I   cannot   recall   that   at
what time, the above witnesses in Police Station. 
12

          xxx                               xxx                                xxx
(24) The   houses   of   witnesses   namely   Sunil   Maldhani   and
Firturam   is   situated   at   the   distance   about   one
Kilometer away from Police Station.  It is correct to say
that   it   takes   the   time   to   search   for   and   reaching   to
witnesses.   The witness was silent, when the question
asked   that   at   what   time   the   independent   witnesses
were   presented.     It   is   incorrect   to   say   that   on   the
memo of the information received from the informant, I
had   took   the   signatures   of   respective   signatures   of
witnesses   after   returning   to   Police   Station   from   the
place of the occurrence of incident.
          xxx                               xxx                                xxx
(29) I   get   the   contraband   substances   identified   by   the
witnesses.     It   is   correct   to   say   that   I   have   not
mentioned   that   contraband   substances   identified   by
the witnesses in memo of identification Exhibit C­7.
          xxx                               xxx                                xxx
(38) It   is   also   incorrect   to   say   that   the   witnesses   used   to
frequently visit at Police Station. Today, I cannot recall
that   on   the   date   of   occurrence   of   incident,   the
witnesses   namely   Sunil   Maldhani   and   Firtu   Banware
had visited to the Police Station in relation of their own
some dispute.   It is also incorrect to say that I get the
signatures   on   the   documents   of   above   both   witnesses
at Police Station.”
21. Having   seen   what   PW­7   said   about   the   presence   of
independent   witnesses,   let   us   now   see   what   these   independent
witnesses had to say. The relevant portion of the testimony  of Shri
Firuturam Banware examined as CW­1 reads as follows:
“1. I   know   Sunil   Malghani.   I   and   Sunil   Malghani   both
were   Counsellor   of   Bodri   Panchayat.   I   do   not   know
accused persons present herein the Court. I am seeing
them today for the first time.
13

2. I   was   not   called   by   Police   of   Police   station
Chakarbhata   in   relation   to   Mukhbir   information   of
Ganja in the year 2014 or at another time, I was never
called   at   Police­station,   I   never   went   to   Pendidih   by
pass road with Police. Police never stopped any car in
my   presence,   I   had   not   seen   that   accused   persons
present here in the court were sitting in any car, Police
never   seized   any   Ganja   from   any   car   in   my   presence.
Police did not do any weighing proceedings of Ganja or
proceedings of taking sample in my presence.
3. In   the   year   2014   I   went   to   the   Police­station
Chakarbhata   in   relation   to   the   dispute   between   some
Sindhis   and   at   that   time   Police   took   my   signature   on
some   documents.   I   did   not   read   in   which   relation
those   documents   were   and   I   was   also   not   told   about
the   contents   of   documents   because   at   that   time   no
documentation   was   done.   Exhibit   C.1,   C.2,   C.3,   C.4,
C.5,   C.6,   C.7,   C.8,   C.9,   C.10   which   is   in   three   pages,
Part   A   to   A   of   C.11,   C.12,   C.13   bears   my   signature.
Part   B   to   B   of   Ex.P/9   bears   my   signature.   Police   did
not took my statement.
//Cross­examination   by   Shri   Kundan   Singh,   Public
Prosecutor for Prosecution//
4. I   had   studied   up   to   Eighth   Class.   It   is   correct   to   say
that   as   I   am   Counsellor   it   is   my   duty   to   help   Police.
Earlier I was Counsellor of Nagar Panchayat Bodri two
times   for   five   years.   It   is   correct   to   say   that   being
Counsellor I have to visit Police whenever I am called.
It   is   correct   to   say   that   during   the   investigation   of
crime   Public   Representatives   are   called,   witness
himself states that once he was called. It is incorrect to
say   that   on   31.05.2014   at   about   17.00   hours   I   was
called at the Police­station, witness himself states that
because there was dispute between  Sindhis  he went to
the  Police­station.   It   is   correct   to   say   that   at   that   day
Sunil Maghlani also went there with me. It is correct to
say   that   upon   saying   of   someone   document   must   not
be signed without reading it…
          xxx                               xxx                                xxx
14

7. It   is incorrect   to  say  that  Weighment  Panchnama   was
done  in my  presence. It  is incorrect  to say  that  Ganja
recovered   from   accused   was   weighed   in   my   presence
and in the presence of Sunil Malghani and at that time
20   kilo   370   grams   in   one   bag,   20kilogram   in   second
bag and 07 kilogram in third bag was found.”
22. The   relevant   portion   of   the   evidence   of   Shri   Sunil   Kumar
Malghani, examined as CW­2 reads as follows:
“1.  I   do   not   know   accused   persons   present   here   in   the
Court.   In   the   Year   2014   I   was   Counsellor   of   Ward
number 7 of Bodri Nagar Panchayat. Two and half year
ago   I   and   Firturam   Banware   went   to   Police­station
Chakarbhata.   We   went   there   for   compromise   for   the
dispute   between  our   people.  Police  took   our   signature
on 4­5 documents. No proceedings were done by Police
in my presence. Police did not caught any articles from
the   accused   persons   in   my   presence.   Police   did   not
gave me any notice.
2.  Part  A to A of notice under  Section 160 of the Cr.P.C.
vide   Ex.P/14   bears   my   signature.   Part   B   to   B   of   C.2,
C.3,   C.4,   C.5,   C.6,   C.7,   C.8,   C.9,   C.10,   C.11,   C.12,
C.13 bears my signature.
//Cross­examination  by Shri Kundan  Singh, Public
Prosecutor for Prosecution//
3. It   is  correct   to  say  that   I   and  Firturam   Banware  went
to   Police­station   Chakarbhata   in   the   evening   at   5.00
hours of 31.05.2014.   It is incorrect to say that notice
was   given   to   me   by   Police­station   Chakarbhata   to   be
present   for   the   investigation   of   Ganja   case.   It   is
incorrect   to   that   with   Police   I   and   Firturam   Banware
went to Pendidih by pass road. 
4. It   is   incorrect   to   say   that   Car   number   C.G.04   H.A.
4850   which   was   in   possession   of   accused   Sanjeet
Kumar   was   stopped   and   searched   and   at   that   time
form   the   back   side   dickey   of   car   psychotropic   Ganja
was found inside three white color plastic bags and it's
Panchnama was done in my presence.”
15

 
23. CWs   1   and   2   were   cross­examined   by   the   Additional   Public
Prosecutor.   A   suggestion   was   put   to   both   these   witnesses   that   the
family   of   the   accused   persons   met   them   and   that   they   were
influenced. In this regard CW­1 denied the suggestion of the Public
Prosecutor in the following words:
“10. It   is   incorrect   to   say   that   family   of   accused
persons met me and because they gave me offer and in
that   greed   I   am   giving   false   statement.     Witness
himself states that he does not know family of accused
persons.     It   is   incorrect   to   say   that   today   family   of
accused persons came in the Court and met me.”
24. Similarly, CW­2 denied the suggestion of the Public Prosecutor
that   he   came   under   the   influence   of   the   family   members   of   the
accused. The relevant portion reads as follows:­
“4. It   is   incorrect   to   say   that   family   of   accused
persons met me.  It is also incorrect to say that today I
am   giving   false   statement   because   of   influence   of
parents   of   accused   persons.     It   is   true   to   say   that
before   signing   the   document   one   must   read   it.     It   is
incorrect   to   say   that   proceedings   took   place   in   my
presence and for this reason I signed on documents.
//Cross­examination  by Shri Kundan  Singh, Public
Prosecutor for Prosecution//
5. It   is   correct   to   say   that   when   I   signed   on
documents   at   that   time   nothing   was   written   on
documents.  It  is  correct  to  say   that  my  signature  was
taken   on   blank   documents.     It   is   correct   to   say   that
the documents on which my signature was taken were
not read over to me.”
16

25. The   independent   witnesses   who   turned   hostile,   not   only
denied   having   witnessed   anything,   but   also   came   up   with   a
plausible explanation as to how their signatures found place in the
documents mentioned by PW­7. According to both the independent
witnesses   they   went   to   the   police   station   in   connection   with   some
other   dispute   relating   to   the   members   of   the   Sindhi   community.
These   2   witnesses   claimed   to   be   elected   counsellors   of   the   local
Panchayat   and   this   claim   was   not   challenged   by   the   Additional
Public Prosecutor in cross examination. Therefore, the case on hand
is   not   a   routine,   run­of­the­mill   matter   where   independent
witnesses are won over and they had no explanation to offer about
their signatures in the  Panchanama.   
26. The   statement   of   these   two   independent   witnesses   assumes
significance in the light of certain other facts also. They are:­
 According   to   PW­7,   he   received   information   from   one
Mukhbir at 16:50 hrs. on 31.05.2014;
 PW­7   claims   that   upon   receipt   of   information,   he
prepared   Exhibit   P­5   and   completed   the   other   formalities.
Thereafter   PW­7   sent   notices   to   the   independent   witnesses   at
17:10 hrs.;
17

 PW­7   further   claims   that   he   departed   to   the   place   of
incident   at   17:10   hrs,   from   the   Police   Station   and   that   the
distance between the place of incident and the Police Station is
approximately 7­8 Kms.;
 PW­7   stated   that   the   houses   of   the   independent
witnesses   Sunil   Kumar   Malghani   and   Firuturam   Banware
were   located   at   a   distance   of   approximately   1   Km   from   the
Police Station;
 Interestingly,   the   Learned   Special   Judge   records   in
Paragraph 24 of the deposition of PW­7 that when asked about
the   time   of   arrival   of   the   independent   witnesses   at   the   Police
Station, the witness (PW­7) remained silent;
 In   Paragraph   25   of   the   testimony   of   PW­7   (cross­
examination)   it   is   recorded   that   PW­7   reached   the   place   of
incident in 5­7 minutes approximately. This is despite the fact
that   even   according   to   PW­7,   the   distance   between   the   Police
Station and the place of incident was approximately 7­8 Kms.;
and
 PW­7 further claimed that his team waited at the place of
incident   for   40   minutes,   after   which   the   accused   reached   the
place of incident.
27. Therefore,   if   the   story   advanced   by   PW­7   is   to   be   believed,
(i)  he received the information at about 16:50 hrs.;  (ii)  he completed
the   formalities   and   sent   notices   to   the   independent   witnesses   at
18

17:10 hrs.;  (iii)  he left the Police Station at 17:10 hrs., and reached
the place of incident in 5­7 minutes; and  (iv)  his team waited at the
place of incident for 40 minutes for the accused to arrive.
28. But in the above timeline, PW­7 is completely silent about the
time when the witnesses reached the  Police Station  or  the place of
incident.
29. Exhibit   C­1   is   the   notice   purportedly   served   on   the
independent   witness   Firuturam   Banware.   This   notice   directs   the
said witness  to appear  at  17:10 hrs. at  the  place  indicated therein
namely, “ Saida Tiwari Para By­pass Main Road ”. Even according to
PW­7   this   notice   to   the   witness   was   sent   only   at   17:10   hrs.,   to   be
served   at   the   residence   of   the   witness   located   1   Km.   away.
Therefore,   there   was   no   way   that   PW­7   could   have   expected   the
witness to be available at the place of incident at 17:10 hrs.
30. Exhibit   C­2   is   the  notice   served   on   the  appellant   herein   (A­1)
under  Section  50  of  the  Act.  The  time shown  therein   is  18:00  hrs.
This notice requires the appellant to indicate whether he would like
to be searched in the presence of Magistrate or  Gazetted Officer. It
is also stated in the notice that the contents thereof were read over
19

in the presence of witnesses. Exhibit C­3 is the consent  Panchnama
of   the   appellant   agreeing   to   be   searched   by   the   police   officer.   This
Panchnama   contains   the   names   of   Sunil   Malghani   and   Firuturam
Banware (CWs 1 and 2). Even the search  Panchnama  of the accused
marked as Exhibit C­4 refers to the presence of CWs 1 and 2 at the
time of search.
31. Therefore, it is clear that the I.O. examined as PW­7 claims to
have   done   everything   only   in   the   presence   of   independent
witnesses. But those independent witnesses not merely denied their
presence and participation but also came up with an explanation as
to how their signatures found a place in those documents.  
32. In   such   circumstances,   a   serious   doubt   is   cast   on   the   very
search   and   seizure   allegedly   made   by   PW­7.   But   unfortunately,
both   the   Special   Court   and   the   High   Court   went   by   the   law   in
theory, without applying the same to the facts of the case.
33. Right from the beginning, the co­accused Reena Das (A­2) was
implicated   at   every   stage.   Admittedly,   the   information   received   by
PW­7   at   16:50   hrs.   on   31.05.2014   contained   a   reference   to   the
appellant   as   well   as   the   co­accused   Reena   Das.   But   for   some
20

strange   reason,   PW­7   chose   to   serve   a   notice   under   Section   50   of
the Act only on the appellant and not on the co­accused.  PW­7 also
omitted   deliberately   or   otherwise,   to   record,   (i)   the   consent
Panchnama   of   co­accused;   (ii)   the   search   Panchnama   of   the   co­
accused;   and   (iii)   the   recovery   Panchnama   in   relation   to   the   co­
accused. This led to the Special Court acquitting the co­accused. It
is   quite   strange   that,   (i)   the   information   received   by   PW­7,   (ii)   the
FIR;   and   (iii)   the   charge­sheet   implicated   the   co­accused,   but     the
prosecution   accepted   the   finding   of   the   Special   Court   that   there
could   have   been   no   recovery   from   the   co­accused   despite   the   fact
that she was also travelling in the same car.
33­A. It is true that Section 54 of the Act raises a presumption
and the burden shifts on the accused to explain as to how he came
into   possession   of   the   contraband.   But   to   raise   the   presumption
under   Section   54   of   the   Act,   it   must   first   be   established   that   a
recovery   was made from   the accused. The moment  a doubt  is cast
upon the most fundamental aspect, namely the search and seizure,
the appellant, in our considered opinion will also be entitled to the
same benefit as given by the Special Court to the co­accused.
21

34. In   view   of   the   above,   we   are   of   the   considered   view   that   the
appellant   is   also   entitled   to   the   benefit   of   doubt.   Therefore,   the
appeal is allowed. The judgments of the Special Court as well as the
High   Court   in   so   far   as   the   same   relates   to   the   conviction   of   the
appellant,   are   set   aside.   The   appellant   shall   be   released   forthwith,
unless he is under custody in connection with some other case. No
costs.
......................................J.
(Indira Banerjee)
.......................................J.
(V. Ramasubramanian)
New Delhi
August  30, 2022
    
22