2019 ALL SCR (Cri) 235
SUPREME COURT
RANJAN GOGOI, NAVIN SINHA AND K. M. JOSEPH, JJ.
Surender Kumar Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh
Criminal Appeal No.750 of 2016
23rd August, 2018.
Petitioner Counsel: Mr. BIPIN KUMAR JHA, Mr. ATISHI D. Mr. ADEEL SIDIQUI, Ms. DIVYA ROY
Respondent Counsel: Mr. VIKAS MAHAJAN, AAG (HP), Mr. VINOD SHARMA, Mr. ANIL KUMAR
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (1985), S.20 - Offence u/S.20 - Reversal of acquittal - Legality - Acquittal by trial court was mainly based on finding that sample seal did not tally with seal sent to FSL - Original record shows that sample seal bears inscription 'H' - Form submitted in Malkhana and report of FSL also mentions of seal with inscription 'H' - Finding rendered by trial court, incorrect - Reversal of acquittal by HC, justified. (Para 4)
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT :- 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 one lakh), in default, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one year.
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 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.