Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

RAM KUMAR versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF NARCOTICS

Decided
5 May 2008
Judges listed
ARIJIT PASAYAT (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[2008] 7 S.C.R. 704 · 2008 INSC 579
Also cited as
  • (2008) 5 SCC 385 (5 citing judgments)

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. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Leave granted.

p. 706, margin C

2

Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench upholding the conviction recorded by a learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Indore in Special Case No.10/98 convicting the appellant alongwith another accused Aziz Khan for offence punishable under Sections 8 and 21 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short 'Act') and sentencing each to RI for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-with default stipulation.

p. 706, margin D

3

Background facts in a nutshell are as under: On 5.19.1997 Superintendent of the Narcotics Department, Shri A.B. Acharya (PW-4) and Inspector Devilal Prajapati (PW-2) proceeded to Mhow Naka. At 8.00 p.m. they checked a bus bearing registration No.MP-09/S-1841, which was going from Indore to Bombay. They informed the driver and conductor of the bus that in regard to the checking of contraband article, they want to check the bus. On inspection they found two persons sitting on seat Nos. 1 and 2. According to the case of the prosecution, the appellant and the co-accused on seeing them became perplexed. After giving notice under Section 50 of the Act they were searched. It is the case of the prosecution that 800 gms. of brown sugar was seized from co-accused Aziz which was kept inside the shoes and 710 gms. of was seized from the appellant. After following formalities, four samples were taken out and they Chemical Examiner. On receiving the report of Examiner, presence of brown sugar was confirmed sheet was submitted in the Special Court. The Special Judge, after bare perusal of the framed charges for offences punishable under Sections of the Act. The accused persons pleaded innocence. Court believed the prosecution version and recorded and imposed sentences. In appeal, High Court confirmec. conviction and sentence.

pp. 706–707, margin E

4

The basic stand of the appellant in the appeal there was violation of the provisions of Sections the Act. It is submitted that there was also discrepancy evidence of the two witnesses about the manner of seizure of the alleged contraband articles.

p. 707, margin C

5

Learned counsel for the respondent on the supported the judgment of the trial Court and the

p. 707, margin C

6

It is to be noted that this is a case of a chance and Section 42 has no application. It is the case of the prosecution as stated by Shri A.8. Acharya (PW-4) Prajapati (PW-2) who were posted as Superintendent Inspector of Narcotics Department at the relevant that on 5.9.1997 they wanted to make casual inspection. driver and the conductor were duly informed. On inspection persons sitting on the seats Nos. 1 and 2 were found and on being asked they disclosed their names and Ram Kumar respectively. Thereafter, they were options to be searched in terms of Section 50 of they consented for their search to be done before Panchanama was prepared. During search 710 gms. sugar was recovered from the appellant which was the shoes and 800 gms. of brown sugar was recovered Aziz Khan. On verification and analysis it was found that the seized substance was brown sugar. Statement of both the accused was recorded. The evidence of witnesses clearly established that it was a case of chance recovery in a public place effected during routine checking. The contraband articles were recovered from the exclusive possession of the appellant and the co-accused.

pp. 707–708, margin E

7

Apart from that, the appellant was examined under Section 67 of the Act in which he admitted the conscious possession of the contraband articles. There was no retraction to this voluntary confession. So far as the alleged discrepancies in the testimony of PWs 2 and 4 are concerned, we find that there are minor variations which do not in any way affect the credibility of evidence of these witnesses. The evidence clearly shows that prosecution has established the separation of samples, deposit of samples in the Malkhana, receipt of samples at the research laboratory and the examination by the experts. It is the evidence of Prajapati (PW-2) that during search of accused persons brown sugar was found inside the shoes. On being examined by UNO Kit it was identified as brown sugar. The samples which were duly sealed were sent to Neemuch factory for examination and on receipt of the report it was concluded that the articles were brown sugar.

p. 708, margin A

8

Above being the position, there is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. 8.8.8. Appeal dismissed

p. 708, margin E