Drug Possession Conviction Upheld: Supreme Court Affirms 10-Year Sentence Under NDPS Act

The case of Surinder Kumar vs. State of Punjab revolves around a conviction under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The Supreme Court upheld the appellant’s 10-year sentence, dismissing his appeal against the verdict of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. This judgment reiterates the importance of procedural compliance in NDPS cases while also addressing the legal implications of evidentiary gaps and the reliability of official witnesses.

Surinder Kumar was convicted for possessing 1 kg 750 grams of opium, leading to a sentence of 10 years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000. The prosecution established its case based on the seizure of the contraband and the testimonies of police officers. The appellant challenged the conviction on various grounds, including non-examination of key witnesses and alleged procedural lapses. However, the Supreme Court found that the prosecution had sufficiently established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Background of the Case

On September 12, 1996, a police team, including Head Constable Devi Lal and Sub-Inspector Darbara Singh, was patrolling near a canal bridge when they noticed Surinder Kumar carrying a bag. Upon seeing the police, he attempted to flee but was apprehended. A search of his bag in the presence of Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP) led to the recovery of 1 kg 750 grams of opium.

The contraband was seized, and proper sampling was conducted. A First Information Report (FIR) was registered, and the case proceeded to trial, where the Special Judge, Ferozepur, convicted the accused under Section 18 of the NDPS Act.

Trial Court Proceedings

During the trial, the prosecution presented four witnesses:

• HC Devi Lal (PW-1) – Witnessed the seizure and arrest.
• SI Darbara Singh (PW-2) – Conducted the search and seizure.
• SI (PW-3) – Handled procedural formalities.
• Constable Sham Lal (PW-4) – Assisted in the investigation.

The accused was given an opportunity to present his defense under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), where he pleaded false implication but did not present any witnesses. The Trial Court convicted him, sentencing him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and imposing a fine.

High Court Proceedings

Surinder Kumar appealed to the Punjab and Haryana High Court, arguing that:

• The prosecution failed to examine the ASP who supervised the search.
• Independent witnesses were not examined despite their availability.
• The link evidence was incomplete as Joginder Singh, ASI, who handled the case property, was not examined.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that non-examination of certain witnesses did not weaken the prosecution’s case.

Arguments Before the Supreme Court

Appellant’s Arguments

The appellant raised several grounds challenging his conviction:

• Non-examination of ASP: The officer who was called to witness the search was not produced as a witness, raising doubts about the prosecution’s version.
• Independent Witnesses Not Examined: No civilians were presented to corroborate the police officers’ testimonies, despite the presence of independent persons at the scene.
• Incomplete Link Evidence: ASI Joginder Singh, who handled the case property before submission to the court, was not examined, leading to a potential break in the chain of custody.
• Violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act: The appellant argued that mandatory safeguards regarding search procedures were not followed.

Respondent’s Arguments

The prosecution, represented by the State of Punjab, defended the conviction, stating that:

• The case was proven beyond reasonable doubt through police testimony and material evidence.
• Non-examination of ASP did not vitiate the trial, as sufficient evidence was presented.
• Independent witnesses are not mandatory for conviction in NDPS cases.
• Chain of custody was intact, as the case property remained sealed and was verified by the court.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

1. Link Evidence and Chain of Custody

The Supreme Court ruled that non-examination of ASI Joginder Singh did not break the chain of custody. The case property was produced in court with seals intact, and the Chemical Examiner’s report confirmed that the sample remained untampered.

2. Non-Examination of ASP

The Court found that the ASP was summoned multiple times but could not appear due to leave or service issues. The failure to examine him was not considered fatal to the prosecution’s case.

3. Independent Witnesses

The Court reiterated that testimony of police officers can be relied upon in NDPS cases, provided it is credible. It cited Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, where it was held that absence of independent witnesses does not render a case unreliable.

4. Section 50 of NDPS Act

The Court clarified that Section 50 applies to searches of persons, not baggage. Since the search was of the accused’s bag, compliance with Section 50 was not necessary.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and sentence:

• Conviction upheld: The prosecution established guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• Sentence maintained: 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 1,00,000 fine.
• Surrender directive: The appellant was ordered to surrender within four weeks to serve the remaining sentence.

Key Takeaways

• Chain of custody is crucial but need not be perfect: As long as the case property remains sealed and verified, minor lapses will not impact conviction.
• Independent witnesses are desirable but not mandatory: Police testimony can form the basis of conviction if it is credible.
• Non-examination of certain witnesses does not automatically weaken the prosecution: Courts will examine the totality of evidence before reaching a conclusion.
• Section 50 safeguards do not apply to baggage searches: The ruling clarifies when Section 50 is applicable.

Conclusion

This judgment reaffirms strict enforcement of the NDPS Act while balancing procedural fairness. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores that courts should assess each case based on the totality of evidence rather than technical lapses. By upholding the conviction, the Court sends a strong message about the seriousness of drug offenses and the importance of procedural diligence in criminal trials.

Petitioner Name: Surinder Kumar.
Respondent Name: State of Punjab.
Judgment By: Justice N.V. Ramana, Justice R. Subhash Reddy, Justice B.R. Gavai.
Place Of Incident: Ferozepur, Punjab.
Judgment Date: 06-01-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Surinder Kumar vs State of Punjab Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 06-01-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Drug Possession Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by N.V. Ramana
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Subhash Reddy
See all petitions in Judgment by B R Gavai
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category