CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 630 of 2004                            CORRECTED COPY                                                             REPORTABLE 1

   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 630  OF 2004

CENTRAL BUREAU OF NARCOTICS APPELLANT

VERSUS

BAHADUR SINGH RESPONDENT

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

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 630 of 2004                            CORRECTED COPY                                                             REPORTABLE 2

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

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 630 of 2004                            CORRECTED COPY                                                             REPORTABLE 3

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

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 630 of 2004                            CORRECTED COPY                                                             REPORTABLE 4

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.     

.......................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

.......................J [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD]

NEW DELHI, NOVEMBER 23, 2010.