VIJAY JAINversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

                    [2013] 4 S.C.R. 293


                        VIJAY JA~N                            A
                             v.
              STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
          (Criminal Appeal No. 486 of 2013 etc.)

                      JUNE 20, 2013
                                                              B
       [A.K. PATNAIK AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.]

    Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985:

     s. 8121 (c) - Conviction on the ground of seizure of c
contraband goods from accused - Non production of
contraband goods before court - Effect of - Held: As the
prosecution has not produced before court, the brown sugar
alleged to have been seized from appellants and has also not
offered any explanation therefor and as the evidence of D
witnesses to seizure does not establish seizure of brown sugar
from appellants, judgment of trial court convicting the
appellants and that of High Court maintaining the conviction
are not sustainable and, as such, are set aside.

     The appellants were convicted uls 8/21 (c) of the E
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
and sentenced to 10 years RI with a fine of Rs. 1 lakh
each. The trial court and the High Court accepted the
prosecution case that on a raid conducted by PW-11, the
Thanedar lncharge (Tl) of the police station, the appellant F
in Crl. A. No. 484 of 2013 was apprehended outside a flat
with a suit case containing brown sugar and the other
appellant was apprehended, inside the said flat, with
brown sugar. The brown sugar from the appellants was
stated to have been seized.                                 G
     In the instant appeals, it was mainly contended that
the conviction of the appellants could not be sustained
for non-production before the trial court of the contraband
                            293                               H
    294       SUPREME COURT REPORTS          (2013) 4 S.C.R

A goods alleged to have been seized from them and the
  finding of the trial court that the contraband goods were
  produced in court was perverse.

          Allowing the appeals, the Court
B     HELD: 1.1. The finding of the trial court that the
  seized contraband goods were produced in a suitcase
  is contrary to the evidence of P.W. 11 (the Tl). There is
  no mention in the evidence of P.W. 11 of any brown
  sugar having been found in the suit case. The only
C evidence before the court was that in the suit case in
  which the contraband goods were kept, when opened,
  there was only a big packet wrapped in cloth which
  contained clothes in a blue coloured polythene. There is,
  however, evidence that samples were prepared of
D 25.25gms which were shown to the witnesses and were
  marked 81 82, but P.W. 3 (the witness of seizure) has
  stated before the court that these samples were not
  prepared in his presence and P.W. 2 (the other witness
  of seizure) has stated before the court that the witnesses
E were not taken to the site where the materials were
  seized. [para 11] (300-F-G; 301-G-H; 302-A-8]

      1.2. As the prosecution has not produced before the
  court, the brown sugar alleged to have been seized from
  the appellants and has also not offered any explanation
F therefor and as the evidence of the witnesses (PW 2 and
  PW3) to the seizure of the materials does not establish
  the seizure of brown sugar from the possession of the
  appellants, the judgment of the trial court convicting the
  appellants and that of the High Court maintaining the
G conviction are not sustainable and, as such, are set aside.
  [para 12] [302-C-D]

       Jitendra & Anr v. State of M.P. 2003 (3) Suppl.
  SCR 918 = (2004) 10 SCC 562; Ashok v. State of M.P. 2011
                  =
H (4) SCR 253 (2011) 5 sec 123 - relied on.
    VIJAY JAIN v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                  295


   Noor Aga v. State of Punjab and Another 2008 (10)              A
SCR 379 = (2008) 16 SCC 417 - referred to.

                     Case Law Reference:
    2003 (3) Suppl. SCR 918        relied on         para 4
                                                                  B
    2011 (4) SCR 253               relied on         para 4
    2008 (10) SCR 379              referred to       para 8

    CRIMINAL APP ELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 486 of 2013.                                                  c
    From the Judgment & Order dated 21.02.2011 of the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in Criminal Appeal
No. 1048 of 2007.
                            WITH                                  D
Crl. A. No. 484 of 2013
    Sushil Kumar Jain, Puneet Jain, Pratibha Jain for the
Appellant.
    Ayesha Choudhary, Musharraf Choudhary, C.D. Singh for         E
the Respondent.
    The following Order of the Court was delivered
                             ORDER
                                                                  F
     1. These are appeals by way of special leave under Article
136 of the Constitution of India against the judgment and order
dated 21st February, 2011 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court,
Indore Bench in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1048 and 1172 of 2007.
     2. The facts very briefly are that on 5th May, 2004, R.C.    G
Pathak, Thanedar lncharge (Tl) of Police Station Annapura
conducted raid at 15:15 hours at Kshitij Apartment, Usha Nagar
Square and apprehended Nilesh Suryakant Shah, the appellant
in Criminal Appeal No. 484 of 2013 outside Flat No. 305 of
the Apartment as he was alleged to have been carrying brown       H
    296      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 4 S.C.R.


A   sugar in a suit case. After seizing the alleged brown sugar from
    Nilesh, RC.Pathak entered Flat No.305 and apprehended the
    appellant Vijay Jain as it was alleged that he also had brown
    sugar in his clothes: RC. Pathak also seized the alleged brown
    sugar from Vijay. Thereafter he handed over investigation to his
B   successor, RD.Bhardwaj, Thanedar lncharge of Raj Nagar
    Police Station and after investigation charge sheet was filed
    against Nilesh and Vijay for the offence under Section 8/21 (c)
    of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
    (for short "the NDPS Act").
c      3. The two appellants denied the charges and trial was
  conducted by the Special Judge(NDPS), Indore. At the trial, the
  prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. Shirish Babu
  Tiwari and Manoj Dubey who witnessed the seizure were
  examined as P.Ws 2 and 3. RC. Pathak was examined as
D P.W. 11 and Lokendra Singh Yadav who was in charge of the
  Malkhana in which the brown sugar was said to have been
  stored was examined as· P.W. 5. The learned Special Judge
  (NDPS), Indore by judgment dated 17th August, 2007,
  convicted the appellants and sentenced them both for 10 years
E rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of '1 lakh on each.
  Aggrieved, the appellants filed Criminal Appeal Nos. 1048 and
  1172 of 2007 before the High Court, but by the impugned
  common judgment, the High Court maintained the conviction
  and sentence and dismissed the appeals. Aggrieved the
F appellants have filed these appeals.

       4. Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, learned counsel appearing for
  the appellants raised several contentions to assail the
  conviction of both the appellants. For deciding these appeals,
G we will consider only the contention of Mr. Jain that the
  contraband goods have not been produced before the trial
  court. He submitted that this Court has held in Jitendra & Anr.
  v. State of M.P. (2004) 10 SCC 562 that where there is non-
  production of the contraband goods alleged to have been
H seized from the accused, the conviction for the offence under
     VIJAY JAIN v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                     297


Section 20(b) of the NDP_S Act cannot be sustained. He also           A
cited the decision of this Court in Ashok v. State of M.P. (2011)
5 sec 123 in which a similar view has been taken that where
the narcotic drug or the psychotropic substance alleged to have
been seized from the possession of the accused is not
produced before the trial court as a material exhibit and there       B
is no explanation for its non-production, there is no evidence
to connect the forensic expert report with the drug or the
substance that was seized from the possession of the accused
and in such a case the conviction is not maintainable.

      5. Mr. Jain further submitted that although the contention
                                                                      c
that the contraband goods were not produced before the Court
was raised, the trial court recorded a finding that on 24th
 February, 2005, the seized materials were deposited in Court
and this finding was arrived at by referring to item no. 4 in the
order sheet of the Court dated 24th February, 2005. He                D
submitted that the trial court has held that a suitcase had been
proauced before the Court and the seized articles were kept
in the suit case. He submitted that the evidence of P.W. 11 on
the contrary is that a big suit case from the store of materials
was produced before the trial court and when the lock of the          E
suit case was broken and the suit case was opened, a big
packet wrapped in cloth was found and a blue coloured
polythene was seen in which clothes were there. He submitted
that the finding of the trial court, therefore, that the contraband
goods were produced in Court was perverse as there was no             F
evidence whatsoever to support the said finding. He argued that
though a submission was made also before the High Court on
behalf of the appellants that the contraband was not produced
in Court, the High Court brushed aside the submission by
recording a bald finding that the contraband has been produced        G
before the Court without delay. He submitted that the finding of
the High Court that the contraband has been produced in Court
is, therefore, contrary to the evidence recorded.

     6. Mr. Jain submitted that the prosecution had also taken
                                                                      H
r
                298    . SUPREME COURT REPORTS                . [2013] 4 S.C.R.


            :A a stand. in the alternative before the trial. court that the
    /             contraband goods were destroyed and, produced before the
               • trial court only the samples of the contraband gooqs, He referred
                  to the provisions of Section 52A of the NDPS Act tO submit
                  that in a case of destruction of contraband goods the procedure
            ' B as laid down in sub-section (2) of Section 52A of the Act has
                  to be followed_ and in· case of _destruction, the inventory .
      ..... __ . prepared at the time before.destruction and the photographs
                  of the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and the list
                  of samples drawn under sub-section (2) of Section 52A of the
    ' · .c        Act as certified by the Magistrate are treated as primary
                  evidence in respect of the offence. He vehemently argued that
            (. since no such procedure has been followed, the alternative plea
                . taken by the prosecution that the contraband goods have been
                  destroyed and could not be produced before the Court cannot
         .0 ·     b~ accepted.                •                            ·     ··

                   . 7. Mr. Jain also submitted that P.W.3 in his evidence
               before the Court, has admitted that the police personnel did not
               take search of any one in front of him and there was no action ·
               in front of him regarding seizure of the brown sugar from any
          E person nor any action·,...- done-regarding preparation of
               samples and sealing nor was any action taken in front of him
               with regard to affixing chits and seizing the materials nor with
               regard to arrest of any person. He submitted that P.W.3 also
               stated in his evidence that his signatures were only taken on
        · F 'A' to 'A' part of Exhibit P.5 to P.6 and 'B' to _'B' part of Exhibit
               P.3 and P.4 and from 'A' to 'A'- part of Exhibit P7 to 26 in the
               Panchnama. He vehemently argued that prosecution has thus
             · not been able to prove through P.W.3 that the contraband goods
               were actually seized from the possession of the appellants. He
          G pointed out that P.W. 3 in fact has been declared hostile. He
               submitted that similarly P.W. 2 has stated in his evidence that·
               no pane~ was taken to the site and that .would show that the
               signatures were taken in the Panchnama by the police without
           · . taking th'e seizure witnesses to the place where the materials
          H were alleged to have been seized from the possession of the.
        1                                                                    ,, ..



                                                                                      i
    VIJAY JAIN v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                     299


appellants. He submitted that the facts in this case, therefore,     A
are similar to the cas~ in Jitendra (supra) in which this Court
found that the panch witnesses had turned hostile and held that
in the absence of non-production of the seized drugs the
conviction under the NDPS Act was not maintainable.
                                                                     B
      8. Ms. Ayesha Choudhary learned counsel appearing for
 the State of Madhya Pradesh, on the other hand, relied on the
judgments of the trial court as well as the High Court for the
findings recorded therein that the contraband goods were
 produced before the Court. In the alternative, she submitted that   C
it has been held by this Court in Noor Aga v. State of Punjab
and Another (2008) 16 sec 417 that even if it is accepted for
the sake of arguments that the bulk quantity of heroin was
destroyed, the samples were essentially to be produced and
proved as primary evidence for the purpose of establishing the
fact of recovery of heroin as envisaged under Section 52A of         D
the NDPS Act. She submitted that since the samples of the
contraband goods in this case which were seized from the two
appellants were produced and marked as Exhibits A 1, A2 and
81 ,82, the prosecution has been able to establish the·fact of
recovery of the contraband goods from the two appellants.            E

    9. Paragraph 96 of the judgment of this Court in Noor
Aga's case (supra) on which learned counsel for the State very
strongly relies is quoted herein below:-
                                                                     F
    "Last but not the least, physical evidence relating to three
    samples taken from the bulk amount of heroin was also
    not produced. Even if it is accepted for the sake of
    argument that the bulk quantity was destroyed, the samples
    were essential to be produced and proved as primary
    evidence for the purpose of establishing the fact of             G
    recovery of heroir as envisaged under Section 52-A of the
    Act."

     Thus, in paragraph 96 of the judgment in Noor Aga's case,
this Court has held that the prosecution must in any case            H
                                                               ..
    300        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 4 S.C.R.


A   produce the samples even where the bulk quantity is said to
    have been destroyed. The observations of this Court in the
    aforesaid paragraph of the judgment do not say anything about
    the consequence of non-production of the contraband goods
    before the Court in a prosecution under the NDPS Act.
B
          10: On the other hand, on a reading of this Court's
    judgment in Jitendra's case (supra), we find that this Court has
    taken a view that in the trial for an offence under the NDPS Act,
    it was necessary for the prosecution to establish by cogent
C   evidence that the alleged quantities of the contraband goods
    were seized from the possession of the accused and the best
    evidence to prove this fact is to produce during the trial, the
    seized materials as material objects and where the contraband
    materials alleged to have been seized are not produced and
    there is no explanation for the failure to produce the contraband
D   materials by the prosecution, mere oral evidence that the
    materials were seized from the accused would not be sufficient
    to make out an offence under the NDPS Act particularly when
    the panch witnesses have turned hostile. Again, in the case of
    Ashok (supra), this Court found that the alleged narcotic powder
E    seized from the possession of the accused was not produced
     before the trial court as material exhibit and there was no
     explanation for its non-production and this Court held that there
    was therefore no evidence to connect the forensic report with
     the substance that was seized from the possession of the
F    appellant.

       11. In the present case, finding of the trial court that the
  seized contraband goods were produced in a suitcase is
  contrary to the evidence of P.W. 11, which is to the following
G effect:-

          "81. Note - A big suit case from the Store materials on
          which No. 466/05 is written has been received in a white
          cloth along with seal of the sealing material. In this the lock
          is of Nos. and the lock is not getting open because of this
H         A.G.P. is directed to call some technical person for
    VIJAY JAIN v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                     301


    opening the lock, on this A.G.P. Had called Shri Shakoor         A
    who expressed that the lock of Nos. and cannot be
    opened, it can be broken. In the case, the evidence
    material is important and therefore it was directed to break
    the lock, the lock was opened. In the suit case on the
    opening a big packef wrapped in cloth was found but the          B
    cloth in torn and blue coloru polythene is being seen in
    which clothes are there. The cloth which is rolled on blue
    colour of polythene there is no seal visible on it. nor any
    description is being seen, because the cloth is damp and
    has been in contaminated condition and is torn and no note       C
    is marked on it. In the polythere there are 5 pants and 5
    shirts which are in wet condition.

    xxxxxxxxxx
    ·111. Today I cannot say that in what colour bag the rest of     D
     the substance was packed in the bag. The material which
     was seized from Vijay Jain out of it two samples 25-25
     gms. were made and marked B1 and 82 which were
     shown to the witness when he said that they were taken
     out from the material found with Vijay Jain on site. No other   E
     packet except the two samples and rest of material were
     made on the site. The said both the packets which have
     been submitted in the court are sealed and on them the
     seizure chit is not affixeo showed the B1 82 packet and
     asked that the seal of Police Station is affixed then the
                                                                     F
    witness said the seal of Police Station is affixed then the
    witness said that it is the seal of Tehsildar Indore. Leaving
     aside rest of the substance and mobile the other seized
     material from Vijay is submitted in the Court. This is true
    that I had not given the mobile for sealing to the lncharge      G
    of Stores. Today I cannot say that where that mobile is."

     Thus the only evidence before the Court was that in the
suitcase in which the contraband goods were allegedly kept
when opened, there was only a big packet wrapped in cloth and
the cloth was torn and there was a blue coloured polythene in        H
    302      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013] 4 S.C.R.


A which there were clothes. There is no mention in the evidence
  of P.W. 11 of any brown sugar having been found in the suit
  case. There is, how~ver, evidence that samples were prepared
  of 25.25gms which were shown to the witnesses and were
  marked 81 82 but we find that P.W. 3 has stated before the
B Court in his examination that these samples were not prepared
  in his presence and P.W. 2 has stated before the Court that
  the witnesses were not taken to the site where the materials
  were seized.

       ·12. We are thus of the view that as the prosecution has
C not produced the brown sugar before the Court and has also
  not offered any explanation for non-production of the brown
  sugar alleged to have been seized from the appellants and as
  the evidence of the witnesses (PW 2 and PW3) to the seizure
  of the materials does not establish the seizure of the brown
D sugar from the possession of the appellants, the judgment of
  the trial court convicting the appellants and the judgment of the
  High Court maintaining the conviction are not sustainable.

       13. In the result, we allow these appeals and set aside the
E impugned judgment of the trial court as well as the High Court.
  The appellants are stated to be in jail. They shall be released
  forthwith if not required in connection with any other case.

    R.P.                                        Appeals allowed.