CENTRAL BUREAU OF NARCOTICS v.

BAHADUR SINGH (Criminal Appeal No. 630 of 2004)

NOVEMBER 24, 2010 [Harjit Singh Bedi and Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, JJ.]

[2010] 14 (ADDL.) SCR 788

The following order of the Court was delivered

O R D E R

1. This appeal by way of special leave has been filed by the Central Narcotics Bureau  

impugning  the  judgment  of  the  High  Court  of  Judicature  for  Rajasthan,  whereby  the  

respondent Bahadur Singh, has been acquitted of an offence punishable under Section 8/18 of  

the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [hereinafter called the ‘Act’].  

2. As per the prosecution story, at 6:00p.m. on the 5th of December, 1997, information  

was  received  by  P.K.  Sharma,  Inspector  of  the  Central  Bureau  of  Narcotics  which  was  

recorded by him in Exhibit P7 that Bahadur Singh and Shyam Singh who were servants in the  

Dhaba belonging to one Bhanwar Singh situated on the Chittorgarh-Mangalwad Highway near  

village Nardhari, had struck a deal to sell about 20 kgs of opium to a truck driver and as the  

exchange was likely to take place sometime during the night of 5th/6th of December, 1997, at  

about 2:00 or  3:00a.m.,  the accused could be apprehended if  a raid was conducted.  The  

raiding party  consisting  of  P.W. 6  Inspector,  Rajendra  Kumar  and P.W.10 Narayan Singh  

amongst  others  proceeded  from Neemuch  to  the  Dhaba and as  they  reached  that  place  

Bhanwar Singh,  the alleged owner of  the Dhaba, and Shyam Singh ran away though the  

respondent  Bahadur  Singh was apprehended.  A notice  under  Section  50 of  the Act  was,  

accordingly, served on him and he was also searched and a key was recovered from his  

person. A box lying in the dhaba which was locked was opened with the key and 17.450kgs. of  

opium was seized therefrom. An FIR was thereupon lodged and after investigation, a case was

filed in Court.  The trial  court  on a consideration of the evidence convicted and sentenced  

Bahadur Singh, respondent, to 15 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2 lacs under  

Section 8/18 of the Act. An appeal was thereafter taken by the accused to the Rajasthan High  

Court which has, by the impugned judgment, set aside the order and judgment of the trial court  

and acquitted the accused. In arriving at its conclusion, the High Court has gone through the  

entire evidence and recorded several  categoric findings which the learned counsel  for  the  

appellant has attempted to challenge. It has first been recorded that there was no independent  

witness of the alleged recovery as all the independent witnesses had resiled from their initial  

versions and that even the two official witnesses, P.W. 6 and P.W. 10, had given discrepant  

statements with the result that they too could not be relied upon. The Court has also held that  

there was no evidence to identify the owner of the dhaba as the land belonged to Kishan Singh  

P.W. 4 as per the statement of the Patwari P.W.9 and that P.W. 4 had come in evidence and  

stated that Bahadur Singh had nothing to do with the aforesaid dhaba/land. The Court has  

further held that the confession allegedly recorded at the instance of the accused could not be  

believed as the statement Ex. P18 was discrepant on material  particulars and, finally, that  

there appeared to be a complete violation of Sections 42 and 57 of the Act.

3. We see from a perusal of the judgment of the High Court that a very comprehensive  

discussion has been made on the evidence. Even assuming for a moment that independent  

witnesses  are  not  willing  to  come forward  in  such  matters  and  further  assuming  that  the  

requirement  of  independent  witnesses was not  necessary,  we are of  the opinion that  the  

statements of P.Ws. 6 and 10 both officials, were also unreliable. The High Court has gone  

through their statements carefully and has given a categoric finding that they differed with each  

other in material particulars. The evidence of P.W. 9 and P.W. 4 when read together makes  

the ownership of the Dhaba completely confusing and uncertain. We also find that no reliance  

can be placed on the confessional statement of the accused.

4. In any case, in the light of the fact that the judgment of the High Court proceeds primarily on an  

appreciation of the evidence, we are not inclined to interfere in this matter. The appeal is dismissed.