- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Rangi Ram v. State Of Haryana
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant was apprehended while crossing the Yamuna river during the night of 21/22 February 1984 carrying 30 kg of poppy husk. He was charged with an offence punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). At trial, the prosecution examined Sub-Inspector Ram Krishan (Station House Officer, P.S. Indri) and Head Constable Sahab Singh, and relied on a recovery memo, the chemical examiner’s report, and link-evidence affidavits. The Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal convicted the appellant and sentenced him to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1 lakh. The Punjab and Haryana High Court affirmed both the conviction and sentence. The present judgment dismisses the appellant’s further appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether non-compliance with Section 52 of the NDPS Act—forwarding the accused and seized articles to an officer empowered under Section 53—vitiated the conviction.
- Whether alleged non-compliance with Section 57—submission of a full report of arrest and seizure to a superior officer—was fatal to the prosecution.
- Whether the Investigating Officer, not expressly authorised under the NDPS Act, had power to investigate the offence.
- Whether the absence of independent witnesses at the time of arrest and seizure rendered the evidence unreliable.
- Whether the discovery of a broken seal on the gunny bag during trial created a reasonable doubt about the integrity of the seized substance.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- Section 52 was violated because neither the appellant nor the seized material was forwarded to an officer empowered under Section 53.
- Section 57 was violated as no full report of arrest and seizure was allegedly sent to a superior officer.
- The Sub-Inspector was not competent to investigate offences under the NDPS Act.
- No independent witnesses were present during arrest and seizure, undermining credibility.
- The gunny bag’s seal was found broken in court, casting doubt on whether the seized substance was the same as that analysed.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
Section 52 Compliance: The officer who arrested the appellant was the Officer-in-Charge of the nearest police station, qualifying as an “officer empowered” for purposes of Section 53; therefore Section 52 was satisfied.
Section 57 Compliance: Although the record contained no explicit proof of a report to superior officers, the defence failed to cross-examine on this point, and Section 57 is directory, not mandatory. Its alleged breach could not vitiate the trial.
Power to Investigate: Under Section 74 of the NDPS Act, a Station House Officer has authority to investigate offences within his jurisdiction; the Sub-Inspector therefore acted lawfully.
Absence of Independent Witnesses: The arrest occurred at midnight on a river bed half a furlong from the nearest village. Attempts to secure villagers as witnesses failed. The courts below trusted the testimony of the police witnesses, finding no impropriety in proceeding without independent observers.
Broken Seal: A representative sample of the substance had been taken at the time of seizure and analysed as poppy husk. The later discovery of a broken seal did not prove substitution, especially since the bag was earlier deposited in the Malkhana in good condition and no application was made to have the court determine tampering.
After addressing each contention, the Court concluded that none undermined the concurrent findings of guilt by the trial and High Courts.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Dismissed; Conviction and Sentence Affirmed.
The appellant remains liable to undergo ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of ₹1 lakh. The judgment maintains existing legal standards under the NDPS Act and sets no new precedent beyond reaffirming that minor procedural irregularities in Sections 52 and 57, absent prejudice, do not invalidate a conviction.
G.T.NANAVATI, J.
(1) THE appellant was tried in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal on an allegation that during the night intervening 21/22.2.1984 while he was crossing Yamuna river from the Uttar Pradesh side, he was carrying with him 30 kg. of poppy husk and thereby he had committed an offence punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
(2) IN order to prove its case the prosecution had examined Sub-Inspector Ram Krishan S.H.O. Police Station, Indri who had gone near the river along with Head Constable Sahab Singh for the purpose of patrolling. The prosecution had also examined Head Constable Sahab Singh and relied upon the recovery memo (Exh. PC), the report of the chemical examiner (Exb.PF) and the link evidence in the form of affidavits (Exh.PA and PB).
(3) THE trial court believed the evidence of the two witnesses and further held that the defence raised by the accused that he was falsely involved at the instance of Constable Krishan Lal was an after thought. The learned Additional Judge, therefore, convicted the accused under Section 15 of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1 lac.
(4) THE High Court after re-appreciating the evidence agreed with the findings recorded by the trial court and confirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant. It was submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that in this case requirement of Section 52 was not complied with inasmuch as the accused and the seized articles were not forwarded to the Officer empowered under Section 53 of the Act. We find no substance in this submission because the person who had arrested the appellant and seized the articles was himself an Officer-in-Charge of the nearest Police Station. It was also contended that the requirement of Section 57 was not complied with inasmuch as no full report of the particulars of arrest and seizure was made by the Sub-Inspector Ram Krishan to his superior officer. It is true that there is no positive evidence on record to show that such 3 report was made. But it is also true that in cross-examination of the witness not a single question was put to find out whether he had made any report to his superior officer or not. There is no material on record which would indicate that this provision was not complied with. Moreover, as pointed out by the High Court this provision is not mandatory. Hence, its non-compliance by itself cannot vitiate the conviction of the appellant.
(5) IT was next contended that the Investigating Officer in this case had no power to investigate as he was not authorised under the Act to investigate offences arising under the Act. The High Court has rightly pointed out that in this case provision contained in Section 74 would apply as the Investigating Officer was himself a Station House Officer of the Police Station having jurisdiction over the area and as such authorised to investigate the offence within his area. Therefore, this contention also deserved to be rejected.
(6) IT was further contended that no independent person was kept present at the time of arrest of the appellant and seizure of the articles. This aspect was also considered by the Courts below and in spite of independent person was not being kept present, the Court thought it fit to place reliance upon the evidence of the Investigating Officer Ram Krishan and Head Constable Sahab Singh. The appellant was found carrying poppy husk at mid night and that too in the river bed. The village was 1/2 furlong away. It appears from the evidence of Ram Krishan that nobody had come forward to act as an independent witness to the seizure memo. Therefore, not keeping an independent person present at that time does not reflect adversely upon the other prosecution evidence.
(7) IT was submitted that Mewa Singh who had gone to the village for this purpose should have examined as a witness. Subinspector Ram Krishan has stated that Mewa Singh could not get anyone to come there at that time. We find no good reason to disbelieve him.
(8) IT was then urged that the seal on the gunny bag when examined in the court was found broken and, therefore, there was no guarantee as to what was found from the gunny bag. Even this submission does not deserve to be accepted because according to the evidence on record, from the material which was found from the gunny bag a sample was taken and the chemical examiner had reported that it was powder of poppy husk. Merely from the circumstance that the seal was found broken, we cannot jump to the conclusion that the material in the gunny bag was substituted. Moreover, the bag was handed over to Malkhana in good condition much earlier.
(9) NO attempt was made to draw attention of the trial court and request it to record a finding if the seal was tampered with.
(10) AS we do not find any substance in any of the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant, the appeal is dismissed.
--- *** ---
Alert