Page 1

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1771 OF 2011

ABBAS ALI   APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB                       RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and  

order passed by the High Court of Judicature of Punjab and Haryana  

at  Chandigarh  in  Criminal  Appeal  No.  440-SB  of  1997,  dated  

08.09.2008.  By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has  

confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed  

by the Trial Court, dated 21.05.1997, whereby the appellant before  

us has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 25  

of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“the  

Act” for short) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for  

a period of 10 years alongwith a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default  

of  payment  of  which  he  was  sentenced  to  undergo  rigorous  

imprisonment for a further period of six months.

 2. The facts, relevant to this appeal, are: A recovery of 10  

bags containing rice polish and 37 bags containing poppy husk, in  

accordance with the provisions of the Act, was made from three  

accused persons (for short “A1”, “A2”, and “A3”, respectively). The  

said bags were being transported in a canter registered in the name

Page 2

2

of the appellant herein (referred to as A4 before the Trial Court).  

A1 to A3 were arrested at the time of recovery, however A4 was  

arrested later. Upon trial, A1 to A3 were convicted by the Trial  

Court  for the  offence under  Section 15  of the  Act and  awarded  

similar sentence as the appellant herein. By the judgment and order  

of the High Court, dated 13.05.2008, in an appeal preferred by the  

said three accused persons, their conviction and sentence has been  

confirmed by the High Court. The said three accused persons are not  

before us in this appeal.

3. The Trial Court and the High Court have elaborately dealt  

with the case of the appellant in their respective judgments and  

orders. The appellant has neither been successful in rebutting the  

statutory presumption of the existence of culpable mental state  

under Section 35 of the Act nor has he been able to prove, beyond  

reasonable doubt, the statutory exception provided under Section  

60(3) of the Act, before both the Courts below.  

4. Before us, in this appeal, the learned counsel appearing  

for the appellant would take up the very same contentions that were  

canvassed before the Trial Court and the High Court, except that  

the appellant is a disabled person and, therefore, the disability  

of the disabled person, which is a vital factor, operating in his  

favor, so as to determine his culpability vis-à-vis the use of his  

canter  by  A1  to  A3  for  indulging  in  transportation  of  the  

contraband substances has to be considered.

Page 3

3

5. The aforesaid issue which we have noticed in our order,  

was not canvassed by the appellant either before the Trial Court or  

before  the  High  Court  and,  therefore,  we  cannot  permit  the  

appellant to raise the said issue for the first time before us.  

Having  said  so,  we  have  still  looked  into  the  disability  

certificate so produced by the appellant before this Court.  The  

certificate would only show that one of the appellant's legs is  

amputated and, therefore, there is 60% physical disability. The  

factum of a person being physically disabled does not imply that he  

would accord his permission to  the use of his vehicle for an  

offence punishable under the provisions of the Act and, therefore,  

in our opinion, the submission of the learned counsel is devoid of  

any merit and, thus, is liable to be rejected.

6. Insofar  as  the  other  submissions  made  by  the  learned  

counsel are concerned, the same have been answered both by the  

Trial Court and the High Court. Having carefully perused through  

the judgments and orders of the Courts below and re-appreciating  

the evidence on record, we are in agreement with the reasoning and  

the  conclusion  reached  by  the  High  Court.  In  our  considered  

opinion, the conviction and sentence so passed by the Trial Court  

and  confirmed  by  the  High  Court  does  not  suffer  from  any  

perversity.

Page 4

4

7. In that view of the matter, this appeal is liable to be  

dismissed and is, therefore, dismissed accordingly.  

Ordered accordingly.

.......................J.

(H.L. DATTU)

.......................J.

(RANJAN GOGOI)

NEW DELHI;

JANUARY 15, 2013.