Summary
The Court affirmed an opium-possession conviction, finding a complete custody chain and reliable official testimony despite non-examination of an intermediary officer, the supervising ASP and independent witnesses. The record established intact seals and the ASP’s presence during recovery. The appellant was directed to surrender to serve the remaining sentence.
Issues
- Whether non-examination of a custody intermediary broke the evidentiary chain.
- Whether absence of the ASP’s testimony or independent witnesses undermined recovery.
- Whether the same-informant-and-investigator objection required interference.
Held
- The intermediary produced the property before the Magistrate, returned it with seals intact and had neither relevant seal. The chemical examiner also received intact matching seals, completing the custody chain despite his non-examination. (¶¶ 10, 11)
- The ASP’s presence at search and seizure was established by the record. His non-examination after repeated unsuccessful summons and valid exemptions did not negate proof or establish the asserted Section 50 violation. (¶¶ 12, 13)
- Efforts to join independent witnesses had been made but none was available. Official testimony cannot be distrusted merely because of official status, and absence of independent testimony does not itself prove false implication. (¶¶ 14, 15)
- Applying the then-cited Varinder Kumar ruling, the pending case remained governed by its individual facts rather than the proposed automatic consequence from Mohan Lal. On the oral and documentary evidence, guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt. (¶¶ 16, 17)
Result
Appeal dismissed; conviction under Section 18 NDPS Act and sentence of ten years’ rigorous imprisonment with Rs.1 lakh fine and default imprisonment affirmed. Bail bonds cancelled; surrender directed within four weeks, failing which the Chief Judicial Magistrate must secure custody.