Summary
The Court upheld the High Court’s reversal of NDPS acquittals. The complainant’s role as investigator did not by itself establish bias; reliable official testimony sustained recovery despite the independent witness’s unsupportive account. The alleged unknown passenger’s ownership of the contraband was fanciful rather than a reasonably probable alternative. Section 50’s personal-search safeguard did not extend to the backpack from which the narcotics were recovered.
Issues
- Whether the complainant’s investigation of his own complaint vitiated the prosecution.
- Whether the alternative account and absence of independent corroboration created reasonable doubt.
- Whether reversal of acquittal and the rejection of the Section 50 objection were justified.
Provisions considered
- Section 50, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985Held the personal-search safeguard inapplicable to recovery from the backpack in the circumstances of this case. (¶ 21)
Held
- Following Mukesh Singh, identity of informant and investigator does not by itself establish unfairness or require acquittal. Bias or its real likelihood depends on the facts. The asserted deficiencies did not establish bias here; passages cited as contrary authority were party submissions in Mukesh Singh, not its findings. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12, 13)
- Two competing accounts warrant benefit of doubt only where the favourable alternative is reasonably probable. The unexplained stranger allegedly taking a lift and fleeing with no supporting evidence was fanciful. An assertion emerging only at the Section 313 stage did not establish investigative bias merely because it had not been investigated earlier. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 16)
- The independent witness’s account did not disprove recovery; having denied presence, he could at most say no recovery occurred before him. Non-examination of other independent witnesses was not automatically fatal. The official witnesses’ testimony had been carefully scrutinised and found reliable. (¶¶ 17, 18)
- The trial court’s mechanical treatment of evidence and mistaken legal burden justified appellate interference. The High Court could reverse an acquittal where patent legal errors, grave injustice or perverse findings warranted it. (¶¶ 19, 20)
- Because both accounts placed the narcotics in a backpack, the safeguard governing search of a person did not extend to that article and Section 50 compliance did not require examination for this recovery. (¶ 21)
Result
Appeals dismissed. Ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and Rs.1,00,000 fine for each appellant maintained. Bail bonds cancelled and State directed to take them into custody to serve the remainder; pending applications disposed of.