Central Bureau Of Narcotics vs Bahadur Singh

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'].

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 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.

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

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 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.

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.