- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Valsala v. State Of Kerala .
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant, Smt Valsala, was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1,00,000 (with a default sentence of one additional year of RI). Her appeal was dismissed by the High Court.
The prosecution case was that on October 3, 1987 at about 5.45 p.m., PW 6 (Police Sub-Inspector and officer in charge of the police station) saw the appellant sitting near Sabudra Hotel by the beach with a packet by her side. The police examined the packet, suspected it to be “brown sugar,” and seized it along with a balance and weights. The material was weighed by a goldsmith at approximately 31 grams and 100 milligrams. A mahazar (Ex. P-2) was prepared in the presence of PWs 1 and 3, an FIR was lodged, and a charge-sheet was filed. The seized article was sent to the Chemical Examiner, who reported that it was brown sugar. The accused denied the offence.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the prosecution proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that the very substance allegedly seized from the appellant was properly preserved and was the same substance sent to the Chemical Examiner, given the delay and gaps in evidence regarding custody and sealing.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- There was inordinate delay in sending the seized article to the Magistrate.
- There was no meaningful evidence showing whether the seized article was sealed and, if sealed, when it was sealed.
- Due to these gaps, it was doubtful whether the very article seized was the one sent to the Chemical Examiner.
State's Arguments
- The State argued that Section 55 of the NDPS Act was not mandatory but only directory.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court examined the Chemical Examiner’s report, which recorded that a sealed parcel containing powder was received and analysed as brown sugar. However, the Court focused on whether the chain of custody and the integrity of the seized material were established through evidence.
The Court noted that the seized article was produced in court only on January 14, 1988, i.e., more than three months after the alleged seizure. The record contained no evidence as to who kept the seized article during this period, and even if it was assumed to be with PW 6, there was no evidence that it was sealed and securely kept.
The Court highlighted specific evidentiary gaps and inconsistencies:
- Mahazar Ex. P-2 did not mention under whose custody the seized article was kept after seizure.
- PW 6’s testimony was silent on what he did with the seized article until its production in court; he did not say he retained it under seal.
- PW 6 did not produce the article in court; PW 3 (ASI) was said to have produced it, but PW 3 did not speak about this in evidence.
- PW 7 (Circle Inspector) entered the picture later and admitted PW 3 sent the seized article to court; PW 7 further admitted he did not check whether the recovered material was sealed, and he did not know when it reached the court.
- The Chemical Examiner’s report was marked only through PW 7.
Given these gaps, the Court found an “important missing link” and concluded that the seized article did not appear to have been kept in proper custody and form so that the Court could be sure that what was seized was what was sent for chemical examination. The Court described the investigation as perfunctory and the evidence of the officers as discrepant and unconvincing.
While acknowledging that narcotic drug trafficking is a societal menace, the Court emphasized that convictions cannot be sustained in the absence of satisfactory proof connecting the seizure to the substance analysed. The Court held that both the lower courts failed to examine this aspect in the proper perspective.
Holding and Implications
ALLOWED; CONVICTION AND SENTENCE SET ASIDE. The judgment of the Sessions Judge, as affirmed by the High Court, was set aside, and the appellant’s conviction and sentence were quashed. If the appellant was in jail, she was directed to be set at liberty forthwith.
The direct effect was the appellant’s acquittal/setting aside of conviction due to insufficient proof on the chain of custody and identity of the seized material. The opinion does not indicate that any new broader precedent was laid down beyond its fact-based assessment of evidentiary gaps.
K. Jayachandra Reddy, J.— The appellant, a lady by name Smt Valsala was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act’ for short) and sentenced to 10 years' RI and to pay a fine of rupees one lakh, in default of payment of which to further undergo RI for one year. The appeal preferred by her was dismissed by the High Court.
2. On October 3, 1987 in the evening at about 5.45 p.m PW 6, Police Sub-Inspector, Officer in charge of Police Station Thiruvananthapuram saw the appellant sitting under a tree near Sabudra Hotel on the eastern side of the beach. She was having a packet by her side. The police party became suspicious and they examined the packet and found it to be a powder. Suspecting it to be brown sugar, they seized the same and also a balance and weights. PW 6 got it weighed by a goldsmith and it weighed about 31 grams and 100 milligrams. The mahazar Ex. P-2 was prepared in the presence of PWs 1 and 3 and FIR was lodged and subsequently a charge-sheet was laid. The article seized was sent to the Chemical Examiner, who examined the same and found it to be brown sugar. Accordingly a report was given. The accused denied the offence.
3. One of the main contentions before both the courts below was that there was inordinate delay in sending the seized article to the Magistrate and that there is no evidence worth mentioning whether the article seized was sealed and if so when. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, it is highly doubtful whether the very article seized was sent to the Chemical Examiner.
4. We have seen the report of the Chemical Examiner and there no doubt it is mentioned that one sealed parcel was received containing a powder and it was analysed to be brown sugar. But from the records it is clear and it is also noted by both the courts below that the seized article was produced in the court only on January 14, 1988 i.e after a period of more than three months and there is no evidence whatsoever at all to show with whom the seized article was lying and even assuming that it was in the custody of PW 6, the Officer in charge of the police station who seized it, there is again nothing to show whether it was sealed and kept there. The learned counsel for the State no doubt argued that the provisions of Section 55 of the Act are not mandatory but only directory. We need not go into this legal question in this case. Suffice it to say that the article seized appears to have been not kept in proper custody and proper form so that the court can be sure that what was seized only was sent to the Chemical Examiner. There is a big gap and an important missing link. In the mahazar Ex. P-2 which is immediately said to have been prepared, there is nothing mentioned as to under whose custody it was kept after seizure. Unfortunately for the prosecution even PW 6 does not say that he continued to keep it in his custody under seal till it was produced in the court on January 14, 1988. The evidence given by PW 6 Police Sub-Inspector, who seized the article is absolutely silent as to what he did with the seized article till it was produced in the court. As a matter of fact he did not produce it in the court. PW 3, A.S.I is supposed to have produced the same in the court. But PW 3 does not say anything about this. It is only PW 7 the Circle Inspector who comes into the picture at a later date, who admitted in the cross-examination that the seized article was sent by PW 3 (A.S.I) to the court and PW 7 in his cross-examination further admitted that he did not even see if the recovered material object was sealed but still he claims that he made the necessary application for sending the material object for chemical examination and it is only through PW 7 that the Chemical Examiner's report is marked. PW 7 further admitted that he did not even know when it reached the court. We are constrained to say that the investigation in this case has been perfunctory and on important aspects the evidence of the concerned officers is highly discrepant and unconvincing and does not throw much light. Therefore the evidence adduced is wholly insufficient to conclude that what was seized from the appellant alone was sent to the Chemical Examiner. Though this is purely a question of fact but this is an important link. Both the courts below have not examined this aspect in a proper perspective. No doubt the trafficking in narcotic drugs is a menace to the society but in the absence of satisfactory proof, the courts cannot convict.
5. In the result the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge as affirmed by the High Court is set aside and the convictions and sentences passed against the appellant are also set aside. If the appellant is in jail, she shall be set at liberty forthwith. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
Alert