Judgment Intelligence
Conviction Set AsideSimarnjit Singh v. State of Punjab
Criminal Appeal No. 1443 of 2023 (arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1958 of 2023); cited as 2023 SCC OnLine SC 906
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Date of Decision
- 9 May 2023
- Bench
- Justices Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 15, 52A, 53
Final Outcome
Appeal allowed: the impugned judgments were set aside insofar as the appellant is concerned, and his conviction and sentence were quashed (paras 10-11).
Key holdings
- Following Mohanlal, samples must be drawn in the Magistrate's presence and under his supervision, the exercise being certified by him; no provision mandates sampling at the time of seizure (para 8).
- Drawing samples from all the packets at the time of seizure was not in conformity with Mohanlal and cast serious doubt on whether the substance recovered was contraband (para 9).
- As the prosecution's case was not free from suspicion or proved beyond reasonable doubt, the conviction under Section 15 of the NDPS Act was quashed (paras 3, 10).
Brief Facts
The appellant was convicted by the Special Judge under Section 15 of the NDPS Act, and the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed his appeal; of the three accused before it, only he appealed (para 3). According to the prosecution, police on patrol stopped a tempo, and a search in the presence of the District Superintendent of Police recovered eight bags of poppy husk concealed under a tarpaulin (para 4). Two samples of 250 grams were drawn from each bag, making sixteen parcels, immediately after the seizure (paras 4, 7). His counsel, relying on Mohanlal, argued that drawing samples without recourse to Section 52A(2) vitiated the prosecution; the State supported the judgments (paras 5-6).
Court's Findings
The Court noted the evidence of the sub-inspector who drew the samples, that they were drawn immediately after the seizure (para 7). It quoted Mohanlal's account of the procedure: on seizure, the contraband goes to the officer in charge of the nearest police station or the officer empowered under Section 53, who prepares an inventory and applies to the Magistrate; "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", and "there is no provision in the Act that mandates taking of samples at the time of seizure" (para 8). Drawing samples from all the packets at the time of seizure was therefore not in conformity with Mohanlal, and "This creates a serious doubt about the prosecution's case that substance recovered was a contraband" (para 9). The prosecution's case was not free from suspicion and had not been established beyond a reasonable doubt (para 10).
Legal Principle
Under Section 52A of the NDPS Act, as explained in Mohanlal, samples are to be drawn in the presence and under the supervision of the Magistrate. Where the police drew samples from every bag at the time of seizure, the Court found a serious doubt whether the substance was contraband and quashed the conviction (paras 8-10).
Precedents Relied Upon
- Union of India v. Mohanlal & Anr. (2016) 3 SCC 379
Under Section 52A(2) and (3), samples are to be drawn in the presence and under the supervision of the Magistrate, who certifies the exercise; no provision mandates taking samples at the time of seizure. Sampling by the police at seizure was not in conformity with it.
