In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India clarified the requirements for proving charges under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The apex court, comprising Justice M M Sundresh and Justice Aravind Kumar, held that the law does not necessitate the presence of only an independent witness to establish a charge under the NDPS Act.
This ruling came in the context of a case involving an appellant convicted under Section 15 of the NDPS Act by both the trial court and the High Court for possessing 54 Kgs of poppy husk. The appellant contended that his conviction was unjust as only police witnesses were examined, and no independent witnesses were presented. He also argued that he was merely traveling in the car and was not in conscious possession of the contraband. Further, he claimed that the CFCL form was not filled up at the place of recovery, and the procedures mandated under the NDPS Act regarding seizure and recovery were not complied with.
The State, countering these arguments, pointed out that all submissions had been considered by the lower courts while convicting the appellant. It was also noted that the Trial Court had imposed only the minimum sentence of 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.
Also read- Punjab And Haryana High Court Rules On Bail Eligibility Under NDPS Act (lawchakra.in)
The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the case, did not find merit in the appellant’s arguments and refused to interfere with the High Court order. The court emphasized,
“Law does not require only an independent witness to prove a charge attracting the provisions of NDPS Act. As was rightly held by the Courts below, there is procedural compliance with respect to arrest, seizure, and recovery. PW-3 is competent to undertake the exercise of gathering evidence and, in any case, PW-7 who himself is a gazetted officer was very much present. The recovery was also made from the car. The views expressed by the Courts below that non-filling of the CFCL form at the site where the arrest and recovery was made would not vitiate the case as it constitutes a part of procedural law.”
This judgment, in the case titled Jagwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, Criminal Appeal No.2027 of 2012, reinforces the Supreme Court’s stance on the evidentiary requirements under the NDPS Act and the role of police and independent witnesses in such cases.
Also read- Delhi Boosts Judicial Capacity: 10 New Family Courts Approved To Tackle Case Backlog (lawchakra.in)