Supreme Court of India
CENTRAL BUREAU OF NARCOTICS versus BAHADUR SINGH
- Decided
- 24 November 2010
- Judges listed
- H.S. BEDI, C.K. PRASAD
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Citations
- Official
- [2010] 14 S.C.R. 788 · 2010 INSC 813
- Also cited as
- (2010) 15 SCC 111
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Paragraph numbering in our copy is uncertain (unnumbered_in_numbered_era). Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
1. This appeal by way of special leave has been filed by the.Central Narcotics Bureau impugning the judgment of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, whereby the respondent Bahadur Singh, has been acquitted of an offence punishable under Section 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [hereinafter called the 'Act'].
p. 789, margin B
2. As per the prosecution story, at 6:00p.m. on the 5th of December, 1997, information was received by P.K. Sharma, Inspector of the Central Bureau of Narcotics which was recorded by him in Exhibit P7 that Bahadur Singh and Shyam Singh who were servants in the Dhaba belonging to one Bhanwar Singh situated on the Chittorgarh-Mangalwad Highway near village Nardhari, had struck a deal to sell about 20 kgs of opium to a truck driver and as the exchange was likely to take place sometime during the night of 5th/6th of December, 1997, at about 2:00 or 3:00a.m., the accused could be apprehended if a raid was conducted. The raiding party consisting of P.W. 6 Inspector, Rajendra Kumar and P.W.10 Narayan Singh amongst others proceeded from Neemuch to the Dhaba and as they reached that place Bhanwar Singh, the alleged .owner of the Dhaba, and Shyam Singh ran away though the respondent Bahadur Singh was apprehended. A notice under Section 50 of the Act was, accordingly, served on him and he was also searched and a key was recovered from his person. A box lying in the dhaba which was locked was opened with the key and 17.450kgs. of opium was seized therefrom. An FIR was thereupon lodged and after investigation, a case was filed.in Court. The trial court on a consideration of the evidence convicted and sentenced Bahadur Singh, respondent, to 15 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2 lacs under Section 8/18 of the Act. An appeal was thereafter taken by the accused to the Rajasthan High Court which has, by the impugned judgment, set aside the order and judgment of the trial court and acquitted the accused. In arriving at its conclusion, the High Court has gone through the entire evidence and recorded several categoric findings which the learned counsel for the appellant has attempted to challenge. It has first been recorded that there was no independent witness of the alleged recovery as all the independent witnesses had resiled from their initial versions and that even the two official witnesses, P.W. 6 and P.W. 10, had given discrepant statements with the result that they too could not be relied upon. The Court has also held that there was no evidence to identify the owner of the dhaba as the land belonged to Kishan Singh P.W. 4 as per the statement of the Patwari P.W.9
pp. 789–790, margin D
and that P.W. 4 had come in evidence and stated that Bahadur Singh had nothing to do with the aforesaid dhaba/land. The Court has further held that the confession allegedly recorded at the instance of the accused could not be believed as the statement Ex. P18 was discrepant on material particulars and, finally, that there appeared to be a complete violation of Sections 42 and 57 of the Act.
p. 790, margin C
3. We see from a perusal of the judgment of the High Court that a very comprehensive discussion has been made on the evidence. Even assuming for a moment that independent
p. 790, margin F
witnesses are not willing to come forward in such matters and further assuming that the requirement of independent witnesses was not necessary, we are of the opinion that the statements of P.Ws. 6 and 10 both officials, were also unreliable. The High Court has gone through their statements carefully and has given
p. 790, margin F
a categoric finding that they differed with each other in material particulars. The evidence of P.W. 9 and P.W. 4 when read together makes the ownership of the Dhaba completely confusing and uncertain. We also find that no reliance can be placed on the confessional statement of the accused.
pp. 790–791, margin G
4. In any case, in the light of the fact that the judgment of the High Court proceeds primarily on an appreciation of the evidence, we are not inclined to interfere in this matter. The appeal is dismissed. R.P. Appeal dismissed.
p. 791, margin A