The recent Supreme Court ruling clarifies that proving charges under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) does not solely hinge on the presence of an independent witness as mandated by law.

The bench headed by Justices M M Sundresh and Aravind Kumar made this observation during a case review, wherein the appellant had been convicted under Section 15 of the NDPS Act by both the trial court and later the High Court. The charge was possession of 54 Kgs of poppy husk.

During the Court hearing the Court observe that, the Appellant argued that the conviction was unjust since only police witnesses were examined, lacking the presence of any independent witness, which, according to the argument, should have precluded the courts from convicting the Appellant.

Additionally, the appellant asserted that they were merely travelling in the car and were not consciously in possession of the contraband. The absence of a completed CFCL form at the recovery site was highlighted as a contention. Furthermore, it was argued that the prescribed procedure outlined in the NDPS Act concerning seizure and recovery had not been adhered to in this instance.

The State argued that all the submissions had been considered by the courts below while convicting the Appellant. Additionally, it was emphasized that the Trial Court had imposed the minimum sentence of 10 years of rigorous imprisonment, indicating a fair and cautious approach in sentencing the Appellant.

The Court dismissed the Appellant's contentions, declining to intervene with the decision made by the High Court.

"The Apex Court, finding no merit in this appeal, emphasized that the law does not mandate solely an independent witness for proving charges under the NDPS Act. The Courts below rightly determined procedural compliance concerning arrest, seizure, and recovery. It was highlighted that PW-3 holds competence in evidence gathering, with PW-7, a gazetted officer, present during the incident. The recovery occurred within the car. The Court supported the lower courts' view that the non-filling of the CFCL form at the arrest site does not invalidate the case, considering it as a procedural aspect within the law."

Case Title: JAGWINDER SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB

Click here to Read/download the Order