Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Central Bureau Of Narcotics vs Dhan Singh on 16 September, 2015
Bench: Dipak Misra, Prafulla C. Pant
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1229 OF 2015
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1325 of 2006
Central Bureau of Narcotics … Appellant
VERSUS
Dhan Singh … Respondent
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The accused-respondent faced trial for the offences punishable under Section 8 read with Section 21 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘the NDPS Act’) on the allegation that on 31.05.2001 about 2.15 p.m., 950 grams of morphine was seized from his possession. The quantity of morphine was found from two bags; one containing 550 grams and the other containing 400 grams.
During the trial, the accused pleaded innocence and false implication. The prosecution, in order to establish its case, examined number of witnesses and proved that the seized item was Morphine by producing the FSL report. The learned trial Judge has recorded findings that there had been compliance with all the mandatory provisions and, accordingly, found the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by accused-respondent guilty of the offence under Section 8 read with Gulshan Kumar Arora Date: 2015.10.01 17:35:43 IST Reason: Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act and, accordingly sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of 2 Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only), in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction, the accused-respondent preferred Criminal Appeal No.287 of 2003 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur, Bench at Gwalior and the High Court accepted the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant therein that the quantity recovered from the accused was 950 grams which was for non-commercial purpose. While accepting the contention, the High Court recorded as follows :
“Considering the small quantity of morphine recovered from the appellant, that too when the appellant was traveling from Jhalawar and was caught on the Guna Railway Station, it could not be proved by the prosecution that said morphine was required to be used for personal consumption or for commercial purpose. Since it is not established that the morphine was used for commercial purpose, sentence of the appellant deserves to be modified.” On the basis of the aforesaid analysis, the High Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone. We have heard Ms. Binu Tamta, learned counsel for the Union of India and Mr. Manoj Prasad, learned Amicus curiae, for the respondent.
Initially, a contention was raised by the learned counsel for the respondent that that prior to 2001, there was no distinction between small quantity and a commercial quantity. But in course of hearing of this appeal, we find there is no need to dwell upon 3 the said issue, for 950 grams of Morphine, by no stretch of imagination, can be regarded as a small quantity. There is no evidence on record that it was required for personal consumption.
As is evident, the High Court has placed the onus on the prosecution that it had to prove that the contraband article was meant for commercial purpose. The approach is erroneous. In fact, the burden was on the accused to show that it was for personal consumption. Needless to say, because of this erroneous approach, the judgment of the High Court is absolutely unsustainable.
Resultantly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order passed by the High Court is set aside and that of the learned trial Judge is restored. The respondent shall be taken into custody forthwith to undergo the rest of the sentence.
.....................,J.
(Dipak Misra) .....................,J.
(Prafulla C. Pant) New Delhi;
September 16, 2015.4
ITEM NO.1 COURT NO.5 SECTION IIA
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRL.) NO. 1325/2006
(Arising out of the impugned judgment and order dated 17.2.2005 in Criminal Appeal no.287 of 2003 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Madhya Pradeh, Jabalpur Bench at Gwalior) CENTRAL BUREAU OF NARCOTICS Appellant(s) VERSUS DHAN SINGH Respondent(s) (With appln.(s) for stay and office report) For Final Disposal) Date : 16/09/2015 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Appellant(s) Ms. Binu Tamta, Adv.
Mr. Manish Vashishtha, AOR Mr. Shailender Saini, Adv.
Ms. Sushma Suri,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Manoj Prasad, Sr. Adv. (AC) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
(Gulshan Kumar Arora) (H.S. Parasher)
Court Master Court Master
((Signed order is placed on the file)