No Magistrate's Order Proving Production of Opium: Supreme Court Restores Acquittal, Faults High Court Reversal

On 30.04.1998 a police party checking vehicles stopped the appellant's scooter; the bag he carried was searched in the presence of a DSP and found to contain 7 kg 40 g of opium (para 2). The case property and samples were said to have been produced before the Area Magistrate the next day (para 2). The trial court acquitted him for non-compliance with Section 50 and because no Magistrate's order proving that production was on record (para 4). On 30.06.2010 the High Court reversed the acquittal on the oral police evidence and sentenced him to ten years under Section 18 (opening paragraph, para 5).

Section 50 did not apply, as the opium was carried in a bag on the scooter and not on the person, following Pawan Kumar (para 9). But production of the case property before the Magistrate rested only on oral evidence: the malkhana in-charge did not produce Register No. 19, and no Magistrate's order showing production was on the file (paras 10-11). The best evidence of the quantity seized is the court record of production before the Magistrate and deposit in the malkhana, or of destruction (para 12). Vijay Jain holds that mere oral evidence of seizure is not enough (para 13). The High Court should not have interfered on oral evidence when the trial court, which had the records, found no such order (para 14). Following Chandrappa, an appellate court must respect the double presumption of innocence after an acquittal and should not disturb it where two reasonable views are possible; the trial court's findings were not distorted conclusions (paras 15-16).