BOTHILAL vs. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU

NON­REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 451 OF 2011   Bothilal         …Appellant versus The Intelligence Officer Narcotics Control Bureau            ...Respondent with CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1185 OF 2011 J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T ABHAY S. OKA, J. FACTUAL ASPECTS 1. Criminal Appeal  No.451 of 2011 has been preferred by accused no.3 and Criminal Appeal No.1185 of 2011 has been Signature Not Verified preferred by accused no.1.  As per the case of the prosecution, Digitally signed by Anita Malhotra Date: 2023.04.26 17:39:44 IST Reason: PW­2   Nalini   Ranjan,   Intelligence   Officer,   Narcotics   Control  Criminal Appeal No.451 of 2011 Page 1 of 16 Bureau (for short, ‘NCB’), South Zonal Unit, Chennai received th information on 16  May 2002.  Based on the information, she along   with   her   team   and   two   independent   witnesses   namely Devendran and Prabhu conducted a raid at Room No.303, Hotel Suriya, Periamet, Chennai where accused no.4 – F. Anna Raj was staying.  The officers of NCB found that apart from accused no.4, accused nos.1 to 3 were also present in the room.   The door of the room was opened by accused no.1.  In the room, a bag containing narcotic substance was found which was seized. The narcotic substance found was 5.067 kilograms of heroin. The   Trial   Court   convicted   the   accused   no.1   (appellant   in Criminal Appeal No.1185 of 2011) for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with Sections 21(c), 27A, 28 and Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘NDPS Act’).  He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 11 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lakh.  In default of payment of fine, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.  Accused no.3 (appellant in   Criminal   Appeal   No.451   of   2011)   was   convicted   for   the offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with Sections 21(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act.  The sentence is the same as that of accused no.1.   In appeal, while confirming the conviction, the High Court of Judicature at Madras reduced the sentence of both of them to ten years.  The default sentence was reduced to one   month.     The   other   two   accused   with   whom   we   are   not  Criminal Appeal No.451 of 2011 Page 2 of 16 concerned,   were   convicted   for   different   offences   punishable under the NDPS Act. SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANTS CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 451 OF 2011 Shri   Sushil   Kumar   Jain,   the   learned   senior   counsel 2. appearing for the appellant has made submissions in Criminal Appeal No.451 of 2011 preferred by accused no.3.  At the outset, he pointed out that till he was released on bail, accused no.3 had undergone sentence for a period of eight years nine months and twelve days.  He submitted that both the Courts have relied upon the confessional statement of the appellant recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act before the officers of the NCB who are invested with the powers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act. Relying   upon  a  decision  of  this  Court   in  the  case  of   Tofan 1 Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu ,   the learned senior counsel submitted   that   the   officer   before   whom   the   confessional statement was made being a police officer, the bar of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, ‘the Evidence Act’) is attracted.   He submitted that the confessional statements are not admissible in evidence against the accused. 1   ( 2021) 4 SCC 1  Criminal Appeal No.451 of 2011 Page 3 of 16 3. The learned senior counsel submitted that the contraband was allegedly recovered from Room no.303, which was booked in the name of accused no.4.  Therefore, there was no seizure from accused no.3.  He further submitted that PW­2 – Nalini Ranjan could not have acted as a Gazetted Officer for the purpose of effecting search under Section 50 of the NDPS Act.  He pointed out that PW­2 was heading the raid since the very inception from the stage of receipt of information.  In fact, she had led the raiding   team.     Therefore,   she   cannot   act   as   an   independent person. 4. The   learned   senior   counsel   further   submitted   that   the officer  who has the power to  enter, search, seize and arrest without   any   warrant   or   authorization,   has   no   power   to investigate the offence and the said power has to be exercised by the officer authorized under Section 53 of the NDPS Act.   He submitted that as provided in sub­Section (3) of Section 52, the seized   articles   are   required   to   be   forwarded   without   any unnecessary delay to the officer empowered under Section 53. He, further, submitted that in this case, PW­2 who had seized bags   containing   alleged   contraband,   drew   representative samples of the contraband.  He submitted that the officer had no power to  do it and it could have been done only under the permission of the Magistrate in accordance with clause (c) of sub­Section   (2)   of   Section   52A.     The   learned   senior   counsel submitted that only the samples drawn under sub­Section (2) of  Criminal Appeal No.451 of 2011 Page 4 of 16 Section   52A   and   certified   by   the   Magistrate   become   primary evidence in respect of the offence.  He relied upon the decision of 2 this Court in the case of  Union of India v. Mohanlal & Anr. He, therefore, submitted that the prosecution is vitiated as the work of drawing the sample was done by PW­2 without following sub­Section   (2)   of   Section   52A.     Lastly,   the   learned   senior counsel submitted that the statements of the two independent witnesses   could   not   have   been   read   in   evidence   as   the prosecution failed to prove that the presence of the witnesses could not be procured.  He submitted that in the circumstances, the evidence of PW­2 should have been subjected to a closer scrutiny.   He submitted that there is no corroboration to the evidence of PW­2 except for the alleged confessional statement which was not admissible in evidence. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1185 OF 2011 5. The   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   appellant   in Criminal Appeal No.1185 of 2011, while adopting most of the submissions   made   by   the   learned   senior   counsel   in   the companion  appeal,  submitted  that  the appellant   had  already undergone a sentence of about nine years.  He submitted that the confessional statement of accused no.1 was not voluntary as is clear from the report under Section 57.   Moreover, in the search,   no   incriminating   material   could   be   found   against 2   ( 2016) 3 SCC 379  Criminal Appeal No.451 of 2011 Page 5 of 16 accused no.1 as it was accused no.4 who had booked the room in his name from which, the contraband was allegedly recovered. He   would,   therefore,   submit   that   the   Courts   ought   to   have acquitted accused no.1. 6. The learned counsel submitted that adverse inference will have to be drawn against the prosecution for not examining the independent   witnesses   though   they   were   available.     He submitted that the accused have lost the opportunity to cross­ examine the independent witnesses, thereby, causing prejudice. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant further submitted that as per the prosecution’s case, the contraband was   recovered   from   room   no.303   in   Hotel   Suriya,   Periamet, Chennai  where  accused  no.4 was staying.   According  to the prosecution’s case, accused no.1 (appellant) was staying in room no.213 of the Himalaya Lodge, Triplicane, Chennai.  He pointed out that according to the prosecution’s case, information was received that accused no.1 was likely to receive 5 Kilograms of heroin   from   accused   nos.2   and   3.     He   submitted   that   the prosecution has not proved that anyone has seen accused nos.2 and 3 carrying contraband to the room occupied by accused no.4.  It is not the prosecution’s case that it was accused no.1 who brought the contraband to room no.303.  The contraband has been seized from the room occupied by accused no.4 who has   been   convicted   only   for   the   offences   punishable   under  Criminal Appeal No.451 of 2011 Page 6 of 16 Section 8(c) read with Section 30 of the NDPS Act.  He submitted that even assuming that the accused no.1 showed contraband kept in a bag in the room occupied by the accused no.4, it cannot   be   inferred   that   he   was   in   actual   or   constructive possession of or was dealing with the contraband.  The learned counsel submitted that the entire case of  the prosecution is suspicious and possibility of the prosecution framing accused no.1, cannot be ruled out. SUBMISSIONS OF NCB 8. The learned Additional Solicitor General (A.S.G.) appearing for   the   respondent   supported   the   impugned   judgment   and pointed out that even if the independent witnesses to the seizure were not examined, the offence can always be proved by the official witnesses.   He submitted that the Courts below have believed the testimony of the official witnesses namely, PW­2 and PW­4 to  PW­7.   He submitted that the contraband was found in the hotel room where all four accused persons were present.  He submitted that even if confessional statements are kept out of consideration, the conviction can be sustained on the basis of the evidence of the official witnesses and in particular, PW­2.  The evidence of PW­2 has not been shaken in the cross­ examination.     The   learned   A.S.G.   would   urge   that   no  Criminal Appeal No.451 of 2011 Page 7 of 16 interference  is  called  for  with   the   concurrent  findings  of  the Courts below.   OUR VIEW 9. The   prosecution’s   case   is   that   PW­2,   who   was   the th Intelligence Officer of the NCB, received information on 16  May 2002 at about 10:45 a.m that accused no.1 who was indulging in drug trafficking, has come to Chennai and was staying in room no.213 of the Himalaya Lodge, Triplicane, Chennai.   He had come there to receive 5 kilograms of heroin from accused nos.2 and 3, who were staying in room no.211 of Hotel Blue Star International, Chennai.  The information received was that the accused nos.1, 2 and 3 had planned to deliver the contraband to accused no.4 who was residing in room no.303 of Hotel Suriya, Periamet, Chennai.  The job of accused no.4 was to transfer it to Tuticorin   and   from   there,   to   Sri   Lanka.     PW­2   raided   room no.303 occupied by accused no.4 along with other officers and two   independent   witnesses   namely,   Devendran   and   Prabhu. According to the prosecution’s case, after the door was knocked on, it was opened and it was found that all the four accused were present there.  When PW­2 questioned whether they were in possession of any narcotic drug, the first accused took out a blue coloured rexine bag which, according to the prosecution, contained packets of a total of 5.067 kilograms of heroin.  PW­2 seized the heroine and took two samples from each packet by  Criminal Appeal No.451 of 2011 Page 8 of 16 placing   them   in   two   plastic   covers   separately.     The   plastic packets were sealed and the remaining contraband was  also sealed.   According to the prosecution’s case, all the accused made confessional statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. 10. Though the two independent witnesses were not examined before the Court, their statements were marked as Exhibits P­19 and P­71.   A perusal of the impugned judgment of the High Court shows that it was held that the conditions prescribed by Section 53A of the NDPS Act were not fulfilled and therefore, these   two   statements   were   inadmissible.     The   High   Court believed the testimony of PW­2 and PW­4 to PW­7 and held that the confessional statements of the accused could be taken as corroboration for the evidence of official witnesses. 11. Paragraphs 158.1 and 158.2 of the majority view in  Tofan 1 Singh’s case , read thus:  “158.  We answer the reference by stating: 158.1.  That the officers who are invested with powers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act are “police officers” within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, as a result of which any   confessional   statement   made   to   them would   be   barred   under   the   provisions   of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and cannot be taken   into   account   in   order   to   convict   an accused under the NDPS Act.  Criminal Appeal No.451 of 2011 Page 9 of 16 158.2. That   a   statement   recorded   under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act.” (emphasis added) 12. Admittedly, the confessional statements were made by the accused to an officer empowered under Section 53 of the NDPS Act and hence, in view of the bar of Section 25 of the Evidence Act,  the  confessional  statements  will   have  to  be  kept  out   of consideration. 13. As   regards   the   statements   of   the   official   witnesses   at Exhibits P­19 and P­71, the Special Court relied upon the same. The High Court considered the provisions of Section 53A, which reads thus: “ 53A. Relevancy of statements under certain circumstances. –  (1) A statement made and signed by a person   before   any   officer   empowered under section 53 for the investigation of offences,   during   the   course   of   any inquiry or proceedings by such officer, shall   be   relevant   for   the   purpose   of proving,   in   any   prosecution   for   an offence under this Act, the truth of the facts which it contains. –  (a) when the person who made the statement   is   dead   or   cannot   be found   or   is   incapable   of   giving  Criminal Appeal No.451 of 2011 Page 10 of 16 evidence, or is kept out of the way by   the   adverse   party,   or   whose presence   cannot   be   obtained without   an   amount   of   delay   or expense   which,   under   the circumstances of the case, the court considers unreasonable; or  (b) when the person who made the statement is examined as a witness in the case before the court and the court is of the opinion that having regard to the circumstances of the case,   the   statement   should   be admitted in evidence in the interest of justice.  (2)   The   provisions   of   sub­section   (1) shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to any proceedings under this Act or the rules or orders made thereunder, other than   a   proceeding   before   a   court,   as they apply in relation to a proceeding before a court.” 14. A   finding   was   recorded   by   the   High   Court   that   the prosecution   has   not   proved   that   the   witnesses   are   dead   or cannot be found or are incapable of giving evidence or kept out of the way of the accused or their presence cannot be obtained without   an   amount   of   delay   or   expense   which,   under   the circumstances of the case, the Court considers unreasonable. These findings are based on the perusal of the entire record. There is no explanation offered by the prosecution about their failure to examine these two independent material witnesses.  Criminal Appeal No.451 of 2011 Page 11 of 16 Hence, the statements of both witnesses are not admissible in evidence. Admittedly,   PW­2   drew   two   samples   from   each   of   the 15. packets of the contraband found in the hotel room and kept them in two separate plastic covers.  These covers were sealed and   the   remaining   contraband   was   also   sealed.     Thus,   the prosecution claims that the samples were prepared even before the   packets   were   sent   to   the   Station   House   Officer.     The submission   of   the   learned   senior   counsel   appearing   for   the appellant   in   Criminal   Appeal   451   of   2011   was   that   a   grave suspicion is created about the prosecution’s case as this action by the PW­2, was contrary to Section 52­A of NDPS Act. 2 In paragraphs 15 to 17 of the   , it was 16. Mohanlal’s case held thus:  “15.  It   is   manifest   from   Section   52­ A(2)include (supra)  that  upon  seizure of the   contraband   the   same   has   to   be forwarded either to the officer­in­charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered   under   Section   53   who   shall prepare an inventory as stipulated in the said provision and make an application to the   Magistrate   for   purposes   of   ( a ) certifying the correctness of the inventory, ( b ) certifying photographs of such drugs or substances taken before the Magistrate as true,   and   ( )   to   draw   representative c samples in the presence of the Magistrate  Criminal Appeal No.451 of 2011 Page 12 of 16 and certifying the correctness of the list of samples so drawn. 16.   Sub­section   (3)   of   Section   52­A requires   that   the   Magistrate   shall   as soon as may be allow the application. This implies that no sooner the seizure is   effected   and   the   contraband forwarded   to   the   officer­in­charge   of the   police   station   or   the   officer empowered, the officer concerned is in law   duty­bound   to   approach   the Magistrate for the purposes mentioned above including grant of permission to draw   representative   samples   in   his presence,   which   samples   will   then   be enlisted and the correctness of the list of   samples   so   drawn   certified   by   the Magistrate. In other words, the process of drawing of samples has to be in the presence and under the supervision of the Magistrate and the entire exercise has to be certified by him to be correct. 17.   The question of drawing of samples at   the   time   of   seizure   which,   more often   than   not,   takes   place   in   the absence of the Magistrate does not in the above scheme of things arise.   This is so especially when according to Section 52­A(4)   of   the   Act,   samples   drawn   and certified by the Magistrate in compliance with   sub­sections   (2)   and   (3)   of   Section 52­A   above   constitute   primary   evidence for the purpose of the trial. Suffice it to say that there is no provision in the Act  Criminal Appeal No.451 of 2011 Page 13 of 16

Thus, the act of PW­2 of drawing samples from all the packets at the time of seizure is not in conformity with what is held by this 2 Court in the case of  Mohanlal .   This creates a serious doubt about the prosecution’s case that the substance recovered was contraband. 17. Even according to the prosecution’s case, as can be seen from the version of PW­2, accused no.1 (appellant in Criminal Appeal   No.1185   of   2011)   was   staying   in   room   no.213   of Himalaya   Lodge,   Triplicane,   Chennai.     He   was   to   receive   5 kilograms   of   heroin   from   accused   no.2   and   accused   no.3 (appellant in Criminal Appeal no.451 of 2011).   Accused nos.2 and 3, according to the case of the prosecution, were staying in room no.211 of Hotel Blue Star International, Chennai.  It was accused no.4 who was staying in room no.303 of Hotel Suriya, Periamet, Chennai where PW­2 and other members of her party entered.   The case of the prosecution is that after PW­2 and others entered the room, they called upon all the four accused who   were   present   there   to   disclose   whether   they   were   in possession of the contraband.   The prosecution’s case is that accused   no.1   showed   a   blue   coloured   bag   from   which   the  Criminal Appeal No.451 of 2011 Page 14 of 16 recovery of about 5 kilograms of heroin was made.  It is not the case of the prosecution that accused no.1 was carrying that bag with him or that it was in his custody.  The bag was in the room occupied by accused no.4.   Thus, it cannot be said that the contraband was found in the custody of accused no.1.  At the highest, it was found in the room occupied by accused no.4.  We may note here that accused no.4 has been convicted by the High Court only for the offence punishable under Section 30 of the NDPS Act which is for the offence of making preparation to do or omitting to do anything which constitutes an offence punishable under   the   provisions   of   Sections   19,   24   and   27A.     The prosecution has not produced any evidence to show that the contraband was brought to the room of the accused no.4 by the other three accused persons or anyone of them.   It is not the case that the room of accused no.4 was in possession of accused nos.1 to 3 who were staying in different hotels. 18. Therefore, in our view, the case of the prosecution is not free from suspicion. The prosecution has not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellants in these two appeals were in   possession   of   the   contraband   or   that   they   brought   the contraband to the hotel room of the accused no.4.   Criminal Appeal No.451 of 2011 Page 15 of 16 19. In the circumstances, we cannot sustain the conviction of the appellants in these two appeals.  Accordingly, the impugned judgments are set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the offences alleged against them.  Appeals are accordingly allowed. ……..….……………J. (Abhay S. Oka) ……...………………J.          (Rajesh Bindal) New Delhi; April 26, 2023.     Criminal Appeal No.451 of 2011 Page 16 of 16