Supreme Court of India
STATE OF RAJASTHANversusBHIYA RAM
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 692
- Decided
- 5 May 2009
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
The High Court’s acquittal was set aside because it failed to consider the effect of the samples reaching the FSL with seals intact and lacked adequate reasoning; the appeal is allowed and the matter remitted for fresh consideration.
Summary
The accused Bhiya Ram and Prahlad Ram were stopped while riding a motorcycle and a large quantity of opium was seized. The seized material was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for analysis, and the accused contended that the samples did not reach the FSL with the seals intact, rendering the evidence inadmissible. The Special Court convicted Bhiya Ram under Sections 8 and 18 of the NDPS Act, but the Rajasthan High Court acquitted him, holding that the chain‑of‑custody requirements of Section 55 were not complied with. The State appealed, arguing that the High Court ignored the fact that the seals were intact when the samples arrived at the FSL and that its order lacked reasoning. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s judgment was unsustainable, set aside the acquittal, and remitted the matter to the High Court for reconsideration in accordance with law.
Issues considered
- Whether the failure of seals to remain intact on receipt of seized samples at the FSL invalidates the evidence under Section 55 of the NDPS Act.
- Whether the High Court erred in acquitting the accused without proper analysis of the chain‑of‑custody requirements.
- Whether the conviction under Sections 8 and 18 of the NDPS Act can stand despite the alleged procedural lapse.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985s. 18, s. 55, s. 8
Subjects
NDPS Actchain of custodyforensic evidenceseal integrityconvictionacquittalappellate jurisdictioncriminal procedure
Judgment
}
[2009] 9 S.C.R. 621
STATE OF RAJASTHAN A
v.
BHIYA RAM
(Criminal Appeal No. 1325 of 2004)
MAY 5, 2009
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR
f- GANGULY, JJ.]
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985:
c
ss. 8118 and 55 - Large quantity of opium recovered from
motorcycle of accused - Plea of accused that samples
collected c;Jt the time of recovery did not reach FSL intact -
Rejected by trial court which recorded conviction - Acquittal
-.I by High Court - Held: Effect of samples reaching FSL with D
~
seals not intact has been considered by Supreme Court in a
large number of cases - Besides, order of High Court is bereft
of discussion and reasoning - High Court would reconsider
the matter in accordance with law.
The accused and another while riding on a E
motorcycle were stopped by police. On search of the
motorcycle, a large quantity of opium was recovered. The
pleas of the accused of their false implication and that the
samples collected did not reach the FSL with seals intact
were rejected by the Special Court, which convicted the F
appellant. However, the High Court having acquitted the
accused, the State filed the appeal.
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to the
High Court, the Court.
It G
HELD: The effect of the samples reaching FSL with
the seals not intact has been considered by this Court
in a large number of cases. Besides, the order of the High
621 H
622 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 9 S.C.R. ...
"I
A Court is bereft of discussion and reasoning. The Hlgh
Court would reconsider the matter in accordance with
}
law. [Para 6 and 7] (624-C-E]
~
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 1325 of 2004.
B
From the Judgment & Order dated 14.11.2003 of the High >---
r-
Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in S.B. Criminal
Appeal No. 225 of 2003.
-+ '
.
c Milind Kumar for the Appellant.
Rajendra Singhvi, K.K.L Gautam and Indra Makwana for
the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by I
k-
D .~
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.1. In this appeal challenge is to i
·the order of the learned single Judge of the Rajasthan High
Court at Jodhpur directing acquittal of the respondent who was
"
tried for allegedly committing offence puni->hable under Sections
~
E 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act,
"I
•.'
1985 (in short the N.D.P.S. Act) The learned Special Judge, ;!;..
NDPS found him guilty and sentenced him to undergo -
imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lac and on
account of non payment of fine, additional rigorous ,.
imprisonment for one year was awarded.
F
2. The prosecution version as unfolded during the trial was r
that the SHO, P.S. Modara, District Jalore, Gopal Ramawat f
(PW-5) on 22.4.2001 was conducting routine checking of the l
vehicles on the road near village Ramseen. In the evening, L
G allegedly, Bhiya Ram and Prahlad Ram came riding on a motor-
~
r-
cycle, which had no number plate and when the same was ,•
signaled to stop, they did not stop. They were chased by the
police jeep and ultimately the motor cycle was stopped.
According to the prosecution, the motor cycle was searched i
H and large quantity of opium was seiz~d ...Both were arrested. h
.
'
J.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. BHIYA RAM
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
623
A case under Section 8/18 of the NDPS Act was registered. A
The samples which were taken on the spot were sent for
chemical examination. As per the chemical examination report
(Exh.P/27) the material sent for examination was found to be
opium containing Morphine. Hence, both were challaned before·
the said court. Both pleaded not guilty. The prosecution Ei3
examined 12 witnesses. DW-1 Jagdish was examined in
defence. He stated that during the relevant time both the
t accused persons were at his house attending the betrothal
ceremony of his daughter, Rekha, and the motor cycle
belonging to Bhiya Ram was stolen by somebody and on the c
next day during the search, they found that the motor cycle was
lying in the police out-post at Ramseen. In this way according
to the defence version both were implicated falsely.
3. The Trial Court acquitted accused Prahlad Ram while
finding the present respondent guilty. He filed in appeal before D
the High Court. The stand taken by the accused before the Trial
Court and the High Court was that the samples which were
allegedly collected at the time of recovery on 22.4.2001 did not
reach the FSL Jaipur intact and on that score alone the
I accused was entitled to acquittal. The Trial Court held that E
accusations were established. The prosecution version clearly
shows that the seals were intact when the articles for
, examination were received by the FSL in the manner in which
the articles were first put in polythene bags and then put in
plastic bags. The Trial Court did not find any substance that the F
samples collected did not reach the FSL, Jaipur in the same .
form as were collected. The High Court, however, held that there
was non compliance with the requirement of Sections 55 of the
Act and the evidence of PW-1 and PW-11 clearly show that the
requisite procedures were not followed. Accordingly, acquittal G
was directed.
4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that the High Court should not have picked
up stray sentences from the evidence to hold ~ccused not guilty.
H
624 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 9 S.C.R. "\ .
~
A The effect of the fact that the seals were intact when received
by the FSL, Jaipur has not been considered. The judgment of
the High Court is very cryptic. The well reasoned order of the
Trial Court should not have been subsided by the High Court.
Learned counsel for the appellant stated that the judgment of
B the High Court is cryptic and there is hardly any analysis of the
evidence.
5. Learned cour1sel for the respondent supported the 4t
judgment of the High Court.
c 6. The effect of the samples reaching with the seals intact
has been considered by this Court in a large number of cases, ·
e.g'. in Hardip Singh vetsus State. of Punjab reported in 2008 '
\'.
(8) sec 557 and Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 2003 decided on · '
28th April, 2009~ ·
D
7. We set aside the impugned judgment and remit the
matter to th.e High Court to reconsider the matter in accordance )
with law. This course is being adopted as the impugned order
is bereft of discussion and reasoning.
E 8 .. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. ..,
•
"'
RP. Appeal allowed. .,._
·---
\.
,...
~
. A
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "NDPS Act"Sign in to search