Officer Who Seized Opium Can Investigate; 40-Day Sampling Delay Harmless With Seals Intact: Supreme Court

A police party stopped a truck in which the appellant sat beside the driver and called a DSP to the spot (para 2). After consent memos were prepared to show compliance with Section 50, a search on the DSP's instructions found 7 kg of opium in a bag in the appellant's hand (para 2). The trial court convicted him under Section 18 and sentenced him to ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of rupees one lakh (para 5). The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld his conviction but acquitted the co-accused driver (para 6). The appellant's defence was that the inspector had falsely implicated him over a grudge arising from an earlier vehicle accident (para 9).

The Court rejected the defence story. The apology document relied on did not bear the inspector's signature, and he was never questioned about it in cross-examination; the complaints said to have been sent to senior officers were not proved to have been sent or received (paras 10-11). On the delay in sending samples, the recovery was proved by the inspector and corroborated by the DSP, in whose presence it was made and who sealed the parcels; the station house officer kept the property until it was deposited, and the seals were intact when the chemical examiner received it (para 12). So the delay of about 40 days "did not and could not have caused any prejudice to the appellant" (para 12). The Section 55 plea failed on Karnail Singh, cited by the appellant himself, and because no prejudice was shown; Ouseph had found doubt only where the articles lay unsealed for about two months (para 13). Applying V. Jayapaul, an informant officer does not forfeit his right to investigate, and bias depends on each case's facts (para 14). As the defence was a got-up story raised only at trial, the question of bias did not arise (para 14).