Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Surender Kumar vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh on 23 August, 2018
Bench: Ranjan Gogoi, Navin Sinha, K.M. Joseph
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 750/2016
SURENDER KUMAR ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF HIMACHAL
PRADESH ...RESPONDENT(S)
ORDER
1. Against the reversal of the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court and the conviction recorded by the High Court under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 this appeal has been filed. The accused appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten (10) years with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees Signature Not Verified one lakh), in default, to further undergo Digitally signed by VINOD LAKHINA simple imprisonment for one year. Date: 2018.08.24 16:27:27 IST Reason:
2
2. The basis of the acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court is that the sample seal (sealed with seal impression ‘H’ and marked as P-2) did not tally with the seal which had accompanied the contraband to the Forensic Science Laboratory (“FSL”) (the entire quantity of contraband seized was sent for analysis to the FSL).
3. If the above is found to be correct, surely, the acquittal would be legally tenable.
4. To determine the correctness of the aforesaid finding and the contrary view taken by the High Court on the issue we have looked into the original records. The sample seal bears the inscription ‘H’, the form (NCB-1) submitted to the Malkhana also 3 indicates that the sample bears the inscription ‘H’. The FSL report also indicates that the samples received (marked as P-2) had been sealed with the inscription ‘H’ and the same was re-sealed by the FSL and returned. If the sample seal; the seal mentioned in the form (NCB-
1) and in the report of the FSL are consistent, namely, to the effect that the sample bears the inscription ‘H’, the finding that the sample seal and the seal sent to the FSL were different would not be correct. It is on the aforesaid basis that we find fault with the order of the learned trial Court acquitting the accused appellant and take the view that the High Court was justified in convicting and sentencing the accused appellant as aforesaid.4
5. The appeal consequently is dismissed.
....................,J.
(RANJAN GOGOI) ...................,J.
(NAVIN SINHA) ...................,J.
(K.M. JOSEPH)
NEW DELHI
AUGUST 23, 2018
5
ITEM NO.103 COURT NO.2 SECTION II-C
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 750/2016
SURENDER KUMAR APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH RESPONDENT(S)
Date : 23-08-2018 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH For Appellant(s) Mr. Bipin Kumar Jha, Adv.
Mr. Atishi D. Adv.
Mr. Adeel Sidiqui, Adv.
Ms. Divya Roy, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Vikas Mahajan, AAG (HP) Mr. Vinod Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Anil Kumar, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order.
[VINOD LAKHINA] [ASHA SONI] AR-cum-PS BRANCH OFFICER [SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE]