Bahadur Singh v. State of Punjab

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Harjit Singh Bedi
Chandramauli Kr. Prasad
Judgment Date: 2011-04-26
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed; the High Court’s acquittal of Bahadur Singh is set aside and Bahadur Singh is acquitted; he is to be released forthwith if not required in connection with any other case.
Final Disposition: Acquittal of the appellant

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Bahadur Singh

Respondents

State of Punjab

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Pradeep Gupta
• Suresh Bharti
• K.K. Mohan

Counsels for Respondents

• Jayant Sud
• AAG
• Harender Singh
• Kuldeip Singh

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Narcotics case under the NDPS Act, arising from a nakabandi conducted by a police party under the supervision of PW-3. Bahadur Singh was spotted with a bag; 10 kilograms of opium was recovered from the bag, and a 20-gram sample was separated. An associate, Darshan Khan, was apprehended separately with 10 kilograms of opium. Two trials followed: the Additional Sessions Judge acquitted Bahadur Singh on the ground that the prosecution story was doubtful and that Sections 50, 55, and 57 of the NDPS Act had been violated, including reliance on a press note (Exhibit DD) published in Jagbani about the other seizure. The High Court reversed the acquittal, holding that Section 50 was not applicable to the facts and that Exhibit DD could not be relied upon as evidence. On appeal, the Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court’s view. It held that Section 50 would not be applicable here, but it also found that the High Court’s exclusion of the press note as evidence was incorrect, since PW-3 had acknowledged its veracity. The Court noted that the trial court’s cautious, favorable view of the evidence was plausible and that interference in an appeal against acquittal is not warranted where such a view is possible. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the High Court’s order set aside, and Bahadur Singh was acquitted and ordered to be released forthwith if not required for other cases.

Provisions of Law Cited

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 18Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 50Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 55Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 57

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant Bahadur Singh contends that the proceedings in the High Court and the trial court misapplied the NDPS Act. Section 50 of the NDPS Act would not be applicable to the facts since 10 kg of opium was recovered from the bag carried by him; the press note (Exhibit DD) was not merely a news item but a press note issued by the SSP, and its veracity was acknowledged by PW-3. The defence urges that the trial court’s acquittal be maintained or that the evidence be considered in a light most favourable to the accused; the High Court’s reliance on the press note as non-evidentiary was erroneous, and the approach in an appeal against acquittal should be cautious, as a clearly possible view in favour of the accused cannot be lightly displaced.

Contentions of Respondents

The State contends that the evidence, including the bag, the presence of opium, and the prior information reflected in the press note, supports conviction under the NDPS Act. Section 50 is relevant to searches and seizures in a nakabandi situation; the press note, though not a normal news item, was admissible as evidence regarding the recovery and corroborated by PW-3. The High Court’s analysis erred in disregarding the materials and the possibility of convicting the appellant. The prosecution maintains that the evidence establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the High Court’s judgment reversing acquittal should stand.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## [2011] .5 S.C.R. 877 ## BAHADUR SINGH A _v._ STATE OF PUNJAB (Criminal Appeal No. 2106 of 2008) : APRIL 26, 2011 : . **B** **[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, JJ.]** , . _Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: ss. 18, 50_ - _Recovery of contraband goods_ - _Nakabandi held_ C _by police party under the sr.ipeNision of Superintendent of police, PW-3_ - _Allegation that on seeing the police party, the_ - _appellant and one 'DK' ran in different directions Both apprehended_ - _10 kgs of opium allegedly found in bag which the appellant was carrying- Recovery of 10 kgs of opium from_ o - _'DK' Both tried separately Conviction of 'DK' attaining finality_ - _Trial court acquitted appellant on_ . _the ground that prosecution story_ was _doubtful and. the provisions in local newspaper, 20 kgs ofopium was recovered from_ 'DS' _but theJ:e was no reference to the appellant_ -. _High Court reversed, the_ E _order of acquittal on the ground that the press note could not be taken in evidence_ - _On appeal, held: Provisions of_ s, _50. was not applicable in the instant_ case - _The •opium was allegedly recovered, from_ a _bag, which the appellant .was carrying_ - _High Court wrongly proceeded on the basis that_ **F** _press note_ was a _news items, whereas it was_ a press _noted issued by the_ SSP, _veracity of which_ was _accepted by PW-3_ - _The finding of High Court that the press note could not be relied upon_ was _not correct_ - _Trial couit took view in favour of the accused on_ a _consideration of the evidence, and_ as _that view_ was _clearly possible,_ . _High Court ought not have_ G _interfered in the matter in an appeal against acquittal_ - _/_ . - _Appeal against acquittal Evidence._ 877 H [2011] 5 S.C.R. ## 878 SUPREME COURT REPORTS A CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal -No:·2106 of 2000. From the Judgment and Order dated 29.05.2008 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal B Appeal No. 231-DBA of 1998. Pradeep Gupta, Suresh Bharti and K.K. Mohan for the Appellant. Jayant Sud, AAG, Harender Singh and Kuldeip Singh for c the Respondent. The following order of the Court was delivered ## ORDER D 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29th May, 2008 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, whereby the acquittal of the appellant-Bahadur Singh for an offence punishable under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (hereinafter referred to as E 'the Act') has been set aside and he has been convicted under that provision and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.one lakh and in default in payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. - F 2. The facts are as under:- 3. At about 6.30 p.m. on the 5th December, 1995, a police party headed by SHO Rajbir Singh held a special nakabandi under the supervision of PW-3 Gurmeet Singh, Superintendent G of Police (Headquarters). At about 6.45 p.m. two persons were spotted coming towards them. On seeing the police party, one of the persons ran towards the taxi stand, whereas the other attempted to turn towards Amloh Chowk. A party led by inspector Rajbir Singh followed the person proceeding towards H Amloh Chowk and apprehended him. He turned out to be BAHADUR SINGH _v._ STATE OF PUNJAB· 879 Bahadur Singh, the appellant. He was alsc found to be carrying a bag in his right hand which was suspected to contain contraband. An offer under Section 50 of the Act was made to him by inspector Rajbir Singh. The appellant stated that he would like to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. PW-3 Gurmeet Singh was accordingly requested to be present. B The bag was searched and 10 Kgs.of opium was found therein. A sample of 20 grams was separated and the balance of the opium was sealed and was entrusted to PW Mohinder Singh. It appears that the person who had run towards the taxi stand was also apprehended by another police party and 10 kg.of c opium was also recovered from him. That man was Darshan Khan. Two trials were held thereafter, one with respect to the appellant, Bahadur Singh and the other with respect to Darshan Khan. It is the admitted position that Darshan Khan's conviction has attained finality. Bahadur Singh was, however, tried by the D Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. who held that the Prosecution story was doubtful and accordingly acquitted him. In arriving at this conclusion, the trial court observed that the provisions of Sections 50, 55 and 57 of the Act had been· violated. It was further found that as per the press note published in the Daily "Jagbani", Jalandhar (Ex.DD) dated 8th E Depember, 1995, it had been brought out that 20 kgs. of opium had been recovered from Darshan Khan by SI Bhupinder Singh and there was no reference to the appellant. The trial court's judgment has been reversed in appeal by the High Court by observing that the provisions of Section 50 of the Act were not F applicable in the facts of the present case and that in any event, the press note, Exhibit DD could not be taken in evidence and no reliance could thus be placed thereon, with regard to its contents. A · G 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the records and materials placed before us, we find that provisions of Section 50 of the Act would not be applicable in the present case. The opium had allegedly been recovered, from a bag, which the appellant was carrying, as per H 880 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 5 S.C.R. A the prosecution story. We, however, find that the observations of the High Court that the press note, Exhibit DD, could not be relied upon appears to be unacceptable. We must note that the High Court had proceeded on the basis that Exhibit DD was a news item, whereas it is clear from this Exhibit that it was a B press note issued by the SSP Khanna, Shri Arun Kumar Mittal. We have gone through .this document and find that it clearly states that as per prior information that opium smugglers from Madhya Pradesh would be selling opium, a police naka had been organised and two persons had alighted from a bus and c on seeing the police had run in the different directions and of them, one person was the appellant and the other was Dar~han Khan and that 20 kilograms of opium had been recovered from the bag carried by Darshan Khan. PW3 SP Gurmeet Singh, in his cross-examination admitted that the press note had indeed D been issued and published in the daily "Jagbani" dated 8th December, 1995. On reading the press note, he stated that it referred to the naka in which the alleged opium had been recovered. In our view, the High Court's observation that Exhibit DD being a news item could not be taken into evidence, is not E correct, as the veracity of the contents of the document, had been accepted by PW-3. We accordingly find that the recovery of 10 Kgs. of opium from the appellant becomes suspect. 5. We may also highlight that the trial court had taken a view in favour of the accused on a consideration of the F evidence, and as that view was clearly possible, the High Court should not have interfered in the matter in an· appeal against acquittal. 6. We, accordingly, allow this appeal, set aside the order G of the High Court and order the acquittal of the appellant. 7. We also direct that the appellant, who is in custody, shall be released forthwith if not wanted/required in connection with any other case. H D.G. Appeal allowed.