CENTRAL BUREAU OF NARCOTICSversusBAHADUR SINGH

                   [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 788


A              CENTRAL BUREAU OF NARCOTICS
                                v.
                        BAHADUR SINGH
                (Criminal Appeal No. 630 of 2004)
                       NOVEMBER 24, 2010
B
       [HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND CHANDRAMAULI KR.
                      PRASAD, JJ.]

        Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985:
c
       ss. 8118, 42 and 47 - Recovery of opium from a box lying
  in a Dhaba - Servant in the Dhaba prosecuted as the key was
  recovered from him - Conviction by trial court - Acquittal by
  High Court - HELD: High Court has gone through the entire
  evidence and rightly recorded that there was no independent
0
  witness of the alleged recovery as all the independent
  witnesses had resiled from their initial version and that even
  the two official witnesses had given discrepant statements with
  the result that they too could not be relied upon, that there was
  no evidence to identify the owner of the dhaba, that the
E confession allegedly recorded at the instance of the accused
  could not be believed and that there appeared to be a
  complete violation of ss. 42 and 57 of the Act - Even
  assuming that the independent witnesses are not willing to
  come forward in such matters and the requirement of
F independent witnesses was not necessary, the statements of
  both the official witnesses were also unreliable - Since the
  judgment of the High Court proceeds primarily on an
  appreciation of the evidence, the same is not interfered with
  - Confession - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136.
G
       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
   No. 630 of 2004.

        From the Judgment and Order dated 09.04.2003 of the
H                                788
 CENTRAL BUREAU OF NARCOTICS v. BAHADUR                    789
                 SINGH
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in S.B.          A
Criminal Appeal No. 668 of 1999.

    J.S. Attri, Niraj Jha and Sushma Suri for the Appellant.

    Doongar Singh, V.J. Francis, Anupam Mishra and Vivek           B
Khandari for the Respondent.

    The following order of the Court was delivered

                            ORDER

     1. This appeal by way of special leave has been filed by
                                                                   c .
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'].               D

     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         E
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,
                                                                   F
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        G
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             H
              l
    790   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A 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
s 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
c 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
0
  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
E 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.
F
        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
G 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
H particulars. The evidence of P.W. 9 and P.W. 4 when read
 CENTRAL BUREAU OF NARCOTICS v. BAHADUR                      791
                 SINGH
together makes the ownership of the Dhaba completely                A
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
                                                                    8
evidence, we are not inclined to interfere in this matter. The
appeal is dismissed.

R.P.                                        Appeal dismissed.