Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in NDPS Act Case: Raveen Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (26 October 2020)

Date of the Judgment: 26 October 2020
Citation: Not Available
Judges: N.V. Ramana, J., Surya Kant, J., Hrishikesh Roy, J.
Can a High Court reverse a trial court’s acquittal in a narcotics case? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in the case of Raveen Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh. The court examined the extent of the High Court’s appellate jurisdiction in cases of acquittal, the reliance on documents not presented during cross-examination, and the necessity of independent witnesses in narcotics cases. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to convict the appellant, emphasizing the importance of adhering to legal procedures and the permissibility of relying on official witnesses. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices N.V. Ramana, Surya Kant, and Hrishikesh Roy, with Justice Surya Kant authoring the opinion.

Case Background

On November 1, 1994, at approximately 3:30 PM, a police team conducting traffic checks near the Himachal Pradesh-Jammu & Kashmir border stopped a Maruti van driven by Raveen Kumar (the appellant). During a search of the vehicle, police found tins of ghee, a bag of maize, 20 bottles of honey, rajmah, an angithi, a thermos, a stepney, and other miscellaneous items. A polythene bag was discovered under the driver’s seat. Suspecting narcotics, the police summoned two local shopkeepers, including Nam Singh (PW1), as independent witnesses. The appellant was informed of his right to be searched in the presence of a magistrate or gazetted officer but consented to a search by the police. The bag was found to contain 1 kg and 230 grams of charas. A 10-gram sample was taken, the charas was sealed, and the appellant was arrested. The sample tested positive for charas with a 34.5% resin content. The appellant was charged under Section 20 of the Narcotics, Drugs, and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The trial court acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that the prosecution had not proven possession of a prohibited substance beyond a reasonable doubt. The court relied heavily on a prosecution reply dated November 9, 1994, which stated the appellant was previously suspected of dealing in contraband. The trial court found this contradicted the police witnesses’ statements that they did not know the appellant previously, suggesting the police had prior information and fabricated the chance recovery. The High Court reversed the trial court’s decision, stating that the trial court had wrongly discarded PW1’s statement, that conviction was possible without independent witnesses, and that any contradictions between PW2 and PW5 were immaterial. The High Court also noted that PW5 was not confronted with the prosecution’s earlier reply during cross-examination, and thus, it could not be relied upon to doubt the prosecution’s version. The High Court sentenced the appellant to two years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50,000, considering the quantity of pure resin content and the delay in trial.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Section 20 of the NDPS Act, which deals with offenses related to cannabis. The relevant portion of the section, as it stood before the 2001 amendment, stated that contravention relating to cannabis other than ganja, is punishable with “rigorous imprisonment which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees and which may extend to two lakh rupees“. Post the 2001 amendment, Section 20(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act specifies the same minimum mandatory punishment of ten years for possession of a ‘commercial quantity’ of cannabis. The Supreme Court also considered the implications of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, which outlines the procedures for search and seizure, and the application of Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, concerning the use of prior statements during cross-examination.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by overturning the trial court’s reasoned acquittal.
• The prosecution’s case was weakened by the fact that the sole independent witness disowned the prosecution’s version.
• The reply dated November 9, 1994, proved that the case was not of chance recovery.
• In case of two possible views on the same set of evidence, the one favoring acquittal ought to be taken.
• The reply, being a court record, did not require to be proved like a statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).
• Leniency was sought due to the appellant’s advanced age and the low quantity of narcotics recovered.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The conviction can be sustained solely on the strength of testimonies of official witnesses, even without corroboration by an independent witness.
• The trial court impermissibly relied upon the reply document, as it was not brought forth during PW5’s cross-examination.
• More than adequate leniency has already been shown at the sentencing stage.
• The High Court had imposed punishment for only the pure resin content, whereas the entire weight of the mixture should have been considered.

Innovativeness of the Argument: The appellant’s argument that the prosecution’s reply in the bail application was sufficient to prove that the case was not a chance recovery was an innovative attempt to use court records against the prosecution. However, the court rejected this argument because the concerned witness was not confronted with the document during cross-examination.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. What is the scope and essence of the High Court’s appellate jurisdiction against a judgment of acquittal?
2. What is the extent of reliance upon a document with which the other side was not confronted with during cross-examination?
3. Whether non-examination of independent witnesses vitiates the prosecution case?

Additionally, the court also considered the possibility of taking a lenient view on sentencing.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon:

Legal Provisions Considered:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Ramabhupala Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh [CITATION]: Followed to establish the appellate court’s power to reconsider both law and fact.
• State of UP v. Banne [CITATION]: Followed to justify the circumstances under which an appellate court can interfere with an acquittal.
• Babu v. State of Kerala [CITATION]: Followed to define what constitutes a perverse finding of fact.
• Ram Jag v. State of UP [CITATION]: Followed to clarify the Supreme Court’s role in appeals against acquittal under Article 136.
• Sita Ram Bhau Patil v. Ramchandra Nago Patil [CITATION]: Followed to emphasize the need to confront a witness with their prior statements during cross-examination.
• Kalpnath Rai v. State [CITATION]: Followed to establish that lack of independent witnesses is not fatal to the prosecution’s case.
• Hira Singh v. Union of India [CITATION]: Followed to clarify that the total quantity of the mixture, including neutral substances, is relevant for sentencing purposes.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure that legal procedures are followed and that appellate courts can correct errors made by trial courts. The Court emphasized that the High Court was correct in reversing the trial court’s acquittal because the trial court had relied on inadmissible evidence and had not properly assessed the witnesses’ testimonies. The Supreme Court also highlighted the importance of considering the total quantity of the seized substance, including the neutral substance, for sentencing purposes.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them because the trial court had relied on inadmissible evidence and had not properly assessed the witness testimonies. The court’s final decision was based on the correct application of legal principles, the proper assessment of evidence, and adherence to the guidelines for sentencing under the NDPS Act.

The Court’s reasoning is based on the following points:

• The High Court has the power to reverse a trial court’s acquittal if the trial court’s decision is perverse.
• A document not presented during cross-examination cannot be relied upon to doubt the prosecution version.
• Lack of independent witnesses is not fatal to the prosecution case.
• The total quantity of the mixture, including the neutral substance, ought to be relevant for sentencing.

“There is, therefore, no legal necessity for us to re-appreciate the entire evidence merely on the premise that the High Court has convicted the appellant for the first time in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.”

“Although there is no need to separately prove the court records emanating during trial but no legal presumption can be extended to the veracity of the contents of such documents.”

“Thus, the sentence accorded by the High Court is clearly already far too charitable.”

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, emphasizing that the High Court had correctly applied the principles governing appeals against acquittal. The Court also clarified that the total quantity of the mixture, including neutral substances, is relevant for sentencing purposes, thus, the High Court had already been lenient in sentencing. There was no dissenting opinion.

The decision has implications for future cases involving appeals against acquittals, emphasizing the importance of adhering to legal procedures and the permissibility of relying on official witnesses. The judgment also clarifies the method for determining the quantity of contraband for sentencing purposes under the NDPS Act.

The Supreme Court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles but reaffirmed existing principles related to appellate jurisdiction, the use of evidence, and sentencing in NDPS cases.

Key Takeaways

• High Courts have the power to reverse acquittals if the trial court’s decision is found to be perverse.
• Documents not presented during cross-examination cannot be used to discredit a witness’s testimony.
• The testimony of police officers can be sufficient for conviction, even without independent witnesses.
• For sentencing under the NDPS Act, the total weight of the mixture, including neutral substances, must be considered.

This judgment clarifies the scope of appellate jurisdiction in cases of acquittal and emphasizes the importance of adhering to legal procedures during trials. It also has implications for future cases involving drug offenses, particularly concerning the determination of the quantity of contraband for sentencing purposes.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the respondent-State to take the appellant into custody to serve the remainder of his two-year sentence.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a High Court can reverse a trial court’s acquittal if the trial court’s decision is perverse, and that the total weight of the mixture, including neutral substances, must be considered for sentencing under the NDPS Act. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the judgment reinforces the existing principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court’s decision to convict the appellant. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to legal procedures, the permissibility of relying on official witnesses, and the proper assessment of evidence. The judgment reinforces the appellate jurisdiction of High Courts and clarifies the sentencing guidelines under the NDPS Act.