NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 451 OF 2011
 
Bothilal         …Appellant
versus
The Intelligence Officer
Narcotics Control Bureau            ...Respondent
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1185 OF 2011
J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T
ABHAY S. OKA, J .
FACTUAL ASPECTS
1. Criminal   Appeal   No.451   of   2011   has   been   preferred   by
accused   no.3   and   Criminal   Appeal   No.1185   of   2011   has   been
preferred   by   accused   no.1.     As   per   the   case   of   the   prosecution,
PW­2   Nalini   Ranjan,   Intelligence   Officer,   Narcotics   Control
 Criminal Appeal No.451 of 2011
Page  1  of  16

Bureau   (for   short,   ‘NCB’),   South   Zonal   Unit,   Chennai   received
information   on   16 th
  May   2002.     Based   on   the   information,   she
along   with   her   team   and   two   independent   witnesses   namely
Devendran and Prabhu conducted a raid at Room No.303, Hotel
Suriya,   Periamet,   Chennai   where   accused   no.4   –   F.   Anna   Raj
was staying.  The officers of NCB found that apart from accused
no.4,   accused   nos.1   to   3   were   also   present   in   the   room.     The
door   of   the   room   was   opened   by   accused   no.1.     In   the   room,   a
bag containing narcotic substance was found which was seized.
The   narcotic   substance   found   was   5.067   kilograms   of   heroin.
The   Trial   Court   convicted   the   accused   no.1   (appellant   in
Criminal   Appeal   No.1185   of   2011)   for   the   offences   punishable
under Section 8(c) read with Sections 21(c), 27A, 28 and Section
29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
(for   short,   ‘NDPS   Act’).     He   was   sentenced   to   undergo   rigorous
imprisonment for a period of 11 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1
lakh.  In default of payment of fine, he was sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for six months.   Accused no.3 (appellant
in   Criminal   Appeal   No.451   of   2011)   was   convicted   for   the
offences   punishable  under  Section  8(c)   read  with  Sections  21(c)
and   29   of   the   NDPS   Act.     The   sentence   is   the   same   as   that   of
accused   no.1.     In   appeal,   while   confirming   the   conviction,   the
High   Court   of   Judicature   at   Madras   reduced   the   sentence   of
both of them to ten years.   The default sentence was reduced to
one   month.     The   other   two   accused   with   whom   we   are   not
 Criminal Appeal No.451 of 2011
Page  2  of  16

concerned,   were   convicted   for   different   offences   punishable
under the NDPS Act.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANTS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 451 OF 2011
2. Shri   Sushil   Kumar   Jain,   the   learned   senior   counsel
appearing   for   the   appellant   has   made   submissions   in   Criminal
Appeal No.451 of 2011 preferred by accused no.3.  At the outset,
he   pointed   out   that   till   he   was   released   on   bail,   accused   no.3
had undergone sentence for a period of eight years nine months
and twelve days.  He submitted that both the Courts have relied
upon the confessional statement of the appellant recorded under
Section   67   of   the   NDPS   Act   before   the   officers   of   the   NCB   who
are invested with the powers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act.
Relying   upon   a   decision   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of   Tofan
Singh   v.   State   of   Tamil   Nadu 1
,   the   learned   senior   counsel
submitted   that   the   officer   before   whom   the   confessional
statement was made being a police officer, the bar of Section 25
of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, ‘the Evidence Act’) is
attracted.     He   submitted   that   the   confessional   statements   are
not admissible in evidence against the accused.
1   ( 2021) 4 SCC 1
 Criminal Appeal No.451 of 2011
Page  3  of  16

3. The learned senior counsel submitted that the contraband
was allegedly recovered from Room no.303, which was booked in
the name of accused no.4.  Therefore, there was no seizure from
accused no.3.   He further  submitted that PW­2 – Nalini Ranjan
could   not   have   acted   as   a   Gazetted   Officer   for   the   purpose   of
effecting  search under  Section 50 of  the NDPS Act.   He pointed
out   that   PW­2   was   heading   the   raid   since   the   very   inception
from the stage of receipt of information.  In fact, she had led the
raiding   team.     Therefore,   she   cannot   act   as   an   independent
person.
4. The   learned   senior   counsel   further   submitted   that   the
officer   who   has   the   power   to   enter,   search,   seize   and   arrest
without   any   warrant   or   authorization,   has   no   power   to
investigate the offence and the said power has to be exercised by
the   officer   authorized   under   Section   53   of   the   NDPS   Act.     He
submitted that as provided in sub­Section (3) of Section 52, the
seized   articles   are   required   to   be   forwarded   without   any
unnecessary   delay   to   the   officer   empowered   under   Section   53.
He,   further,   submitted   that   in   this   case,   PW­2   who   had   seized
bags   containing   alleged   contraband,   drew   representative
samples of the contraband.  He submitted that the officer had no
power   to   do   it   and   it   could   have   been   done   only   under   the
permission   of   the   Magistrate   in   accordance   with   clause   (c)   of
sub­Section   (2)   of   Section   52A.     The   learned   senior   counsel
submitted that only the samples drawn under sub­Section (2) of
 Criminal Appeal No.451 of 2011
Page  4  of  16

Section   52A   and   certified   by   the   Magistrate   become   primary
evidence in respect of the offence.  He relied upon the decision of
this   Court  in   the  case   of   Union   of   India   v.   Mohanlal  &   Anr. 2
He,   therefore,   submitted   that   the   prosecution   is   vitiated   as   the
work of drawing the sample was done by PW­2 without following
sub­Section   (2)   of   Section   52A.     Lastly,   the   learned   senior
counsel   submitted   that   the   statements   of   the   two   independent
witnesses   could   not   have   been   read   in   evidence   as   the
prosecution   failed   to   prove   that   the   presence   of   the   witnesses
could not be procured.  He submitted that in the circumstances,
the   evidence   of   PW­2   should   have   been   subjected   to   a   closer
scrutiny.     He   submitted   that   there   is   no   corroboration   to   the
evidence   of   PW­2   except   for   the   alleged   confessional   statement
which was not admissible in evidence.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1185 OF 2011
5. The   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   appellant   in
Criminal   Appeal   No.1185   of   2011,   while   adopting   most   of   the
submissions   made   by   the   learned   senior   counsel   in   the
companion   appeal,   submitted   that   the   appellant   had   already
undergone   a   sentence   of   about   nine   years.     He   submitted   that
the confessional statement of accused no.1 was not voluntary as
is   clear   from   the   report   under   Section   57.     Moreover,   in   the
search,   no   incriminating   material   could   be   found   against
2   ( 2016) 3 SCC 379
 Criminal Appeal No.451 of 2011
Page  5  of  16

accused no.1 as it was accused no.4 who had booked the room
in his name from which, the contraband was allegedly recovered.
He   would,   therefore,   submit   that   the   Courts   ought   to   have
acquitted accused no.1.
6. The   learned   counsel   submitted   that  adverse   inference   will
have to be drawn against the prosecution for not examining the
independent   witnesses   though   they   were   available.     He
submitted   that   the   accused   have   lost   the   opportunity   to   cross­
examine the independent witnesses, thereby, causing prejudice.
7. The   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   appellant   further
submitted   that   as   per   the   prosecution’s   case,   the   contraband
was   recovered   from   room   no.303   in   Hotel   Suriya,   Periamet,
Chennai   where   accused   no.4   was   staying.     According   to   the
prosecution’s case, accused no.1 (appellant) was staying in room
no.213 of the Himalaya Lodge, Triplicane, Chennai.   He pointed
out   that   according   to   the   prosecution’s   case,   information   was
received   that   accused   no.1   was   likely   to   receive   5   Kilograms   of
heroin   from   accused   nos.2   and   3.     He   submitted   that   the
prosecution has not proved that anyone has seen accused nos.2
and   3   carrying   contraband   to   the   room   occupied   by   accused
no.4.     It   is   not   the   prosecution’s   case   that   it   was   accused   no.1
who   brought   the   contraband   to   room   no.303.     The   contraband
has   been   seized   from   the   room   occupied   by   accused   no.4   who
has   been   convicted   only   for   the   offences   punishable   under
 Criminal Appeal No.451 of 2011
Page  6  of  16

Section 8(c) read with Section 30 of the NDPS Act.  He submitted
that   even   assuming   that   the   accused   no.1   showed   contraband
kept   in   a   bag   in   the   room   occupied   by   the   accused   no.4,   it
cannot   be   inferred   that   he   was   in   actual   or   constructive
possession of or was dealing with  the contraband.   The learned
counsel   submitted   that   the   entire   case   of   the   prosecution   is
suspicious   and   possibility   of   the   prosecution   framing   accused
no.1, cannot be ruled out.
SUBMISSIONS OF NCB
8. The learned Additional Solicitor General (A.S.G.) appearing
for   the   respondent   supported   the   impugned   judgment   and
pointed out that even if the independent witnesses to the seizure
were   not   examined,   the   offence   can   always   be   proved   by   the
official   witnesses.     He   submitted   that   the   Courts   below   have
believed   the   testimony   of   the   official   witnesses   namely,   PW­2
and   PW­4   to   PW­7.     He   submitted   that   the   contraband   was
found   in   the   hotel   room   where   all   four   accused   persons   were
present.   He submitted that even if confessional  statements are
kept out of consideration, the conviction can be sustained on the
basis   of   the   evidence   of   the   official   witnesses   and   in   particular,
PW­2.   The evidence of PW­2 has not been shaken in the cross­
examination.     The   learned   A.S.G.   would   urge   that   no
 Criminal Appeal No.451 of 2011
Page  7  of  16

interference   is   called   for   with   the   concurrent   findings   of   the
Courts below.  
OUR VIEW
9. The   prosecution’s   case   is   that   PW­2,   who   was   the
Intelligence Officer of the NCB, received information on 16 th
 May
2002   at   about  10:45   a.m   that   accused   no.1   who   was   indulging
in   drug   trafficking,   has   come   to   Chennai   and   was   staying   in
room   no.213   of   the   Himalaya   Lodge,   Triplicane,   Chennai.     He
had   come   there   to   receive   5   kilograms   of   heroin   from   accused
nos.2 and 3, who were staying in room no.211 of Hotel Blue Star
International,   Chennai.     The   information   received   was   that   the
accused nos.1, 2 and 3 had planned to deliver the contraband to
accused no.4 who was residing in room no.303 of Hotel Suriya,
Periamet, Chennai.  The job of accused no.4 was to transfer it to
Tuticorin   and   from   there,   to   Sri   Lanka.     PW­2   raided   room
no.303   occupied   by   accused   no.4   along   with   other   officers   and
two   independent   witnesses   namely,   Devendran   and   Prabhu.
According to the prosecution’s case, after the door was knocked
on,   it   was   opened   and   it   was   found   that   all   the   four   accused
were   present   there.     When   PW­2   questioned   whether   they   were
in possession of any  narcotic drug, the first accused took out a
blue   coloured   rexine   bag   which,   according   to   the   prosecution,
contained packets of a total of 5.067 kilograms of heroin.   PW­2
seized   the   heroine   and   took   two   samples   from   each   packet   by
 Criminal Appeal No.451 of 2011
Page  8  of  16

placing   them   in   two   plastic   covers   separately.     The   plastic
packets   were   sealed   and   the   remaining   contraband   was   also
sealed.     According   to   the   prosecution’s   case,   all   the   accused
made   confessional   statements   under   Section   67   of   the   NDPS
Act.
10. Though the two independent witnesses were not examined
before the Court, their statements were marked as Exhibits P­19
and   P­71.     A   perusal   of   the   impugned   judgment   of   the   High
Court   shows   that   it   was   held   that   the   conditions   prescribed   by
Section   53A   of   the   NDPS   Act   were   not   fulfilled   and   therefore,
these   two   statements   were   inadmissible.     The   High   Court
believed the testimony of PW­2 and PW­4 to PW­7 and held that
the   confessional   statements   of   the   accused   could   be   taken   as
corroboration for the evidence of official witnesses.
11. Paragraphs 158.1 and 158.2 of the majority view in  Tofan
Singh’s case 1
, read thus: 
“158.   We answer the reference by stating:
158.1.   That the officers who are invested with
powers   under   Section   53   of   the   NDPS   Act   are
“police   officers”   within   the   meaning   of   Section
25   of   the   Evidence   Act,   as   a   result   of   which
any   confessional   statement   made   to   them
would   be   barred   under   the   provisions   of
Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and cannot be
taken   into   account   in   order   to   convict   an
accused under the NDPS Act.
 Criminal Appeal No.451 of 2011
Page  9  of  16

158.2.   That   a   statement   recorded   under
Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used
as   a   confessional   statement   in   the   trial   of
an offence under the NDPS Act.”
(emphasis added)
12. Admittedly, the confessional statements were made by the
accused to an  officer  empowered under Section  53 of the NDPS
Act and  hence, in  view of  the bar  of Section  25 of the  Evidence
Act,   the   confessional   statements   will   have   to   be   kept   out   of
consideration.
13. As   regards   the   statements   of   the   official   witnesses   at
Exhibits P­19 and P­71, the Special Court relied upon the same.
The High Court considered the provisions of Section 53A, which
reads thus:
“ 53A.   Relevancy   of  statements   under
certain circumstances. – 
(1)   A   statement   made   and   signed   by   a
person   before   any   officer   empowered
under section 53 for the investigation of
offences,   during   the   course   of   any
inquiry   or   proceedings   by   such   officer,
shall   be   relevant   for   the   purpose   of
proving,   in   any   prosecution   for   an
offence   under   this   Act,   the   truth   of   the
facts which it contains. – 
(a)   when   the   person   who   made   the
statement   is   dead   or   cannot   be
found   or   is   incapable   of   giving
 Criminal Appeal No.451 of 2011
Page  10  of  16

evidence,   or   is   kept   out   of   the   way
by   the   adverse   party,   or   whose
presence   cannot   be   obtained
without   an   amount   of   delay   or
expense   which,   under   the
circumstances of the case, the court
considers unreasonable; or 
(b)   when   the   person   who   made   the
statement   is   examined   as   a   witness
in the case before the court and the
court   is   of   the   opinion   that   having
regard   to   the   circumstances   of   the
case,   the   statement   should   be
admitted   in   evidence   in   the   interest
of justice. 
(2)   The   provisions   of   sub­section   (1)
shall, so far as may be, apply in relation
to any proceedings under this Act or the
rules   or   orders   made   thereunder,   other
than   a   proceeding   before   a   court,   as
they   apply   in   relation   to   a   proceeding
before a court.”
14. A   finding   was   recorded   by   the   High   Court   that   the
prosecution   has   not   proved   that   the   witnesses   are   dead   or
cannot be found or are incapable of giving evidence or kept out
of  the   way  of  the   accused   or   their  presence  cannot  be   obtained
without   an   amount   of   delay   or   expense   which,   under   the
circumstances   of   the   case,   the   Court   considers   unreasonable.
These   findings   are   based   on   the   perusal   of   the   entire   record.
There   is   no   explanation   offered   by   the   prosecution   about   their
failure   to   examine   these   two   independent   material   witnesses.
 Criminal Appeal No.451 of 2011
Page  11  of  16

Hence,   the   statements   of   both   witnesses   are   not   admissible   in
evidence.
15. Admittedly,   PW­2   drew   two   samples   from   each   of   the
packets   of   the   contraband   found   in   the   hotel   room   and   kept
them   in   two   separate   plastic   covers.     These   covers   were   sealed
and   the   remaining   contraband   was   also   sealed.     Thus,   the
prosecution   claims   that   the   samples   were   prepared   even   before
the   packets   were   sent   to   the   Station   House   Officer.     The
submission   of   the   learned   senior   counsel   appearing   for   the
appellant   in   Criminal   Appeal   451   of   2011   was   that   a   grave
suspicion is created about the  prosecution’s case as this action
by the PW­2, was contrary to Section 52­A of NDPS Act.
16. In   paragraphs   15   to   17   of   the   Mohanlal’s   case 2
,   it   was
held thus: 
“15.   It   is   manifest   from   Section   52­
A(2)include   (supra)   that   upon   seizure   of
the   contraband   the   same   has   to   be
forwarded either to the officer­in­charge of
the   nearest   police   station   or   to   the   officer
empowered   under   Section   53   who   shall
prepare   an   inventory   as   stipulated   in   the
said provision and make an application to
the   Magistrate   for   purposes   of   ( a )
certifying the correctness of the inventory,
( b ) certifying photographs of such drugs or
substances taken before the Magistrate as
true,   and   ( c )   to   draw   representative
samples in the presence of the Magistrate
 Criminal Appeal No.451 of 2011
Page  12  of  16

and certifying the correctness of the list of
samples so drawn.
16.   Sub­section   (3)   of   Section   52­A
requires   that   the   Magistrate   shall   as
soon   as   may   be   allow   the   application.
This implies that no sooner the seizure
is   effected   and   the   contraband
forwarded   to   the   officer­in­charge   of
the   police   station   or   the   officer
empowered,   the  officer   concerned   is   in
law   duty­bound   to   approach   the
Magistrate   for   the   purposes   mentioned
above   including   grant   of   permission   to
draw   representative   samples   in   his
presence,   which   samples   will   then   be
enlisted   and   the   correctness   of  the  list
of   samples   so   drawn   certified   by   the
Magistrate. In other words, the  process
of   drawing   of   samples   has   to   be   in   the
presence   and   under   the   supervision   of
the   Magistrate   and   the   entire   exercise
has to be certified by him to be correct.
17.   The  question  of drawing  of  samples
at   the   time   of   seizure   which,   more
often   than   not,   takes   place   in   the
absence   of   the   Magistrate   does   not   in
the   above   scheme   of   things   arise.   This
is so especially when according to Section
52­A(4)   of   the   Act,   samples   drawn   and
certified   by   the   Magistrate   in   compliance
with   sub­sections   (2)   and   (3)   of   Section
52­A   above   constitute   primary   evidence
for   the   purpose   of   the   trial.   Suffice   it   to
say   that   there   is   no   provision   in   the   Act
 Criminal Appeal No.451 of 2011
Page  13  of  16

that   mandates   taking   of   samples   at   the
time of seizure. That is perhaps why none
of the States claim to be taking samples at
the time of seizure. ”
(emphasis added)
Thus, the act of PW­2 of drawing samples from all the packets at
the time of seizure is not in conformity with what is held by this
Court   in   the   case   of   Mohanlal 2
.     This   creates   a   serious   doubt
about   the   prosecution’s   case   that   the   substance   recovered   was
contraband.
17. Even   according   to   the   prosecution’s   case,   as   can   be   seen
from   the   version   of   PW­2,   accused   no.1   (appellant   in   Criminal
Appeal   No.1185   of   2011)   was   staying   in   room   no.213   of
Himalaya   Lodge,   Triplicane,   Chennai.     He   was   to   receive   5
kilograms   of   heroin   from   accused   no.2   and   accused   no.3
(appellant   in   Criminal   Appeal   no.451   of   2011).     Accused   nos.2
and 3, according to the case of the prosecution, were staying in
room   no.211   of   Hotel   Blue   Star   International,   Chennai.     It   was
accused   no.4   who   was   staying   in   room   no.303   of   Hotel   Suriya,
Periamet, Chennai where PW­2 and other members of her party
entered.     The   case   of   the   prosecution   is   that   after   PW­2   and
others   entered   the   room,   they   called   upon   all   the   four   accused
who   were   present   there   to   disclose   whether   they   were   in
possession   of   the   contraband.     The   prosecution’s   case   is   that
accused   no.1   showed   a   blue   coloured   bag   from   which   the
 Criminal Appeal No.451 of 2011
Page  14  of  16

recovery of about 5 kilograms of heroin was made.   It is not the
case of the prosecution that accused no.1 was carrying that bag
with him or that it was in his custody.  The bag was in the room
occupied   by   accused   no.4.     Thus,   it   cannot   be   said   that   the
contraband   was   found   in   the   custody   of   accused   no.1.     At   the
highest, it was found in the room occupied by accused no.4.  We
may note here that accused no.4 has been convicted by the High
Court   only   for   the   offence   punishable   under   Section   30   of   the
NDPS Act which is for the offence of making preparation to do or
omitting to do anything which constitutes an offence punishable
under   the   provisions   of   Sections   19,   24   and   27A.     The
prosecution   has   not   produced   any   evidence   to   show   that   the
contraband was brought to the room of the accused no.4 by the
other   three   accused   persons   or   anyone   of   them.     It   is   not   the
case that the room of accused no.4 was in possession of accused
nos.1 to 3 who were staying in different hotels.
18. Therefore,   in   our   view,   the   case   of   the   prosecution   is   not
free   from   suspicion.   The   prosecution   has   not   proved   beyond   a
reasonable doubt that the appellants in these two appeals were
in   possession   of   the   contraband   or   that   they   brought   the
contraband to the hotel room of the accused no.4. 
 Criminal Appeal No.451 of 2011
Page  15  of  16

19. In the circumstances, we cannot sustain the conviction of
the appellants in these two appeals.   Accordingly, the impugned
judgments are set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the
offences alleged against them.  Appeals are accordingly allowed.
……..….……………J.
(Abhay S. Oka)
……...………………J.
         (Rajesh Bindal)
New Delhi;
April 26, 2023.   
 Criminal Appeal No.451 of 2011
Page  16  of  16