Summary
The Court upheld reversal of acquittal for possession of thirteen kilograms of charas, finding that the trial court’s doubts contradicted the evidence. The bag search did not attract the personal-search safeguard; consistent official testimony and the appellant’s control and knowledge established possession. Speculative tampering concerns overlooked the Magistrate’s signatures on the parcels. The conviction and monetary penalty remained, but imprisonment was reduced from fifteen to ten years on the particular sentencing circumstances.
Issues
- Whether reversal of the trial court’s acquittal was justified.
- Whether the search, witness and custody objections undermined proof of conscious possession.
- Whether the sentence required reduction.
Provisions considered
- Section 50, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985Held inapplicable to the gunny-bag search, which was not a personal search. (¶ 10)
Held
- An appellate court may reappraise evidence in an acquittal appeal, respecting the reinforced presumption of innocence and the protection of two reasonable views. Here the trial court’s view was not reasonably possible on the evidence, warranting reversal. (¶¶ 10, 11)
- Section 50 applies to personal search and did not invalidate recovery from the bag. Absence of independent witnesses did not defeat consistent and trustworthy official evidence in the circumstances of this late-night search at a dhaba away from the village. (¶ 10)
- The appellant’s presence at the counter, operation of the dhaba on his wife’s land, and the bag’s location established physical control and knowledge of the substance. His contrary account was unsupported; the Court applied the possession presumption on the established facts. (¶¶ 10, 11)
- The tampering concern overlooked the Magistrate’s signatures on the samples and bulk parcels and the absence of a tampering suggestion to the relevant witnesses. It was insufficient to discredit the prosecution evidence. (¶ 10)
- While the conviction required no interference, the incident’s age, the appellant’s approximately sixty-five-year age and the particular circumstances justified reducing rigorous imprisonment to ten years. The conviction and penalty were maintained. (¶¶ 12, 13)
Result
Appeal partly allowed only as to sentence: rigorous imprisonment reduced from fifteen to ten years; conviction and Rs.2,00,000 fine maintained.