Judgment Intelligence
Petition DismissedPon Adithan v. Deputy Director, Narcotics Control Bureau, Madras
Criminal appeal (number not printed in the Supreme Court's print); reported as (1999) 6 SCC 1
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Date of Decision
- 16 July 1999
- Bench
- Justices G.T. Nanavati and N.S. Hegde
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 8(c), 21, 50; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 313
Final Outcome
Finding no substance in any of the appellant's contentions, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, leaving the conviction confirmed by the High Court in place (paras 1, 8).
Key holdings
- The searching officer's oral evidence, found reliable, proved that the accused was told of his Section 50(1) right (para 4).
- T.P. Razak was decided on its own evidence and lays down no rule that such oral evidence needs independent or documentary support (paras 5-6).
- An alleged offence by the witness ten years later did not affect her evidence in this case (para 4).
- Custody alone does not make a confession involuntary; with no complaint to the Magistrate and only a vague later claim of threat, it was held voluntary (para 7).
- Samples drawn in court before the Magistrate, sealed, and received with seals intact were held to come from the seized article despite a weight discrepancy (para 7).
Brief Facts
The respondent's complaint alleged that the appellant was found with 150 gms of heroin without a valid permit on 13.4.1988 while passing on a road in Madras (para 2). The Intelligence Officer of the Narcotics Intelligence Bureau who searched and arrested him testified; the independent search witness did not support the prosecution (para 2). The trial court believed the officer and the appellant's confessional statement (Exh. P-3) and convicted him (para 2). The Madras High Court confirmed the conviction under Section 8(c) read with Section 21 of the Act, finding the officer's evidence sufficient, without a finding on the confession (paras 1, 3).
Court's Findings
Both courts below had found the officer reliable, and the Court, after scrutinising her evidence, held that it "can safely be relied upon", including on informing the appellant of his Section 50(1) right (para 4). Her alleged involvement in a case under the Act about ten years later "cannot affect her evidence in this case" (para 4). T.P. Razak turned on its facts: there was no clear finding on the credibility of the only witness to compliance, and it laid down no rule that the searching officer's oral evidence is insufficient without independent or documentary support (paras 5-6). The confession corroborated the officer (para 7). That it was recorded in custody "by itself cannot be regarded as sufficient" to show pressure; the appellant made no complaint before the Magistrate the next day or until his Section 313 statement, and his claim of threat was vague (para 7). The Court held the confession voluntary and usable against him (para 7). On the weights recorded for the sample, the samples were prepared in court before the Magistrate and sealed, and the analyst found the seal intact, leaving "little room for doubt" that the sample came from the seized article (para 7).
Legal Principle
Compliance with Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act may be proved by the reliable oral evidence of the searching officer; independent or documentary corroboration is not a rule of law. A confession is not involuntary merely because it was recorded in custody, and a vague, belated retraction does not displace it (paras 4-7).
Precedents Relied Upon
- T.P. Razak v. State of Kerala 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 256
Relied on by the appellant; held to turn on its own facts (no clear finding on the credibility of the only witness to Section 50(1) compliance) and not to lay down that the searching officer's oral evidence is insufficient without independent or documentary support.
