DAULATRAM Vs CBN MANDSAUR, M.P.
Bench: HARJIT SINGH BEDI,CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, , ,
Case number: Crl.A. No.-000259-000259 / 2006
Diary number: 22006 / 2005
Advocates: ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA Vs
SUSHMA SURI
Crl.A. 259 of 2006 REPORTABLE 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 259 OF 2006
DAULAT RAM & ANR. ...... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
CBN MANDSAUR, M.P. ...... RESPONDENT
O R D E R
1. This appeal arises out of the following facts:
1.1 The appellants herein, both brothers, Daulat
Ram and Mangilal, sons of Hurdabai, were living with
their mother at village Dorana. Hurdabai had been
issued a licence to grow opium in her land and the
appellants were looking after the cultivation on her
behalf. On the 5th April, 1997, reports were received
in the Narcotics Office that Hurdabai was not
depositing the entire yield of opium with the
Lambardar. The ASI CBN, Balaram PW 2, and the District
Opium officer, Satyaveer Singh Choudhary PW 6, along
with other members of a raiding party reached the
village Dorana at 2:00p.m., and on inquiry it was
ascertained that the allegations appeared to be
correct. The appellants were, accordingly, apprehended
and interrogated by the ASI and during interrogation
Crl.A. 259 of 2006 REPORTABLE 2
Daulat Ram admitted that some of the undeclared opium
had been hidden in his field. Thereafter Mangilal
appellant was also interrogated and he made a similar
statement. The raiding party then visited the field of
Daulat Ram and after digging the pit at the place
pointed out by him, took out a polythene bag which
when weighed was found to contain 3kg of opium.
Similarly, Mangilal took the officers to the place
which he had identified and another 3 kg of opium was
recovered from another pit. The appellants also gave
their confessions Exhibits P 16 and P17 respectively,
stating therein that they had withheld the opium to
sell it in the market in an unauthorised manner.
1.2 On the completion of the investigation, the
appellants were charged under Section 8 read with
Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
The trial court relying on the evidence of P.W. 1
Bhanwarilal Patwari who had identified the fields as
belonging to Hurdabai and in particular the evidence of
P.W. 2, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 and also on the confessions
made by the accused held that the case against them had
been proved beyond doubt. The appellants were each
sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine
of Rs.1 lakh with a default sentence. An appeal taken
Crl.A. 259 of 2006 REPORTABLE 3
to the High Court too was dismissed.
2. Before us, today, Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma the
learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants, has raised
one basic argument. He has submitted that as per the
Act and Rule 13 of the Narcotics Drugs & Psychotropic
Substances Rule, 1985, framed thereunder the opium
which was produced had to be reported to the Lambardar
and it was only after the final notification had been
issued and the production had been quantified that the
final accounting had to be made and not at any stage
prior thereto. It has also been pointed out that the
two independent witnesses having not supported the
prosecution there was no independent evidence against
the appellants.
3. Mr. J.S. Attri, the learned senior counsel for
the respondents has, however, supported the judgment of
the courts below.
4. We have considered the arguments advanced by the
learned counsel. It is true, as contended by Mr.
Sharma, that an over all accounting of the opium has to
be made after the notification has been issued
identifying the percentage of opium that should be in
the hands of a producer. However, there is an
obligation under Rule 13 of the Rules, 1985 to make a
declaration to the Lambardar as to the quantity of
Crl.A. 259 of 2006 REPORTABLE 4
opium produced everyday. There is no evidence or
suggestion to show that the opium which had been
recovered had been declared or accounted for before the
Lambardar. On the contrary the fact that it had been
buried three feet underground and far away from the
residence of the appellants clearly shows that the
intention was to stash away the opium for sale in an
authorised way.
5. Mr. Sharma has, however, cited Bheru lal v.
State of Rajasthan RLW 2003 (2) Raj 1056 to contend
that till the final quantification had been made the
opium could not be said to be contraband. We find that
some of the conclusions drawn in the cited judgment are
too far reaching and basically ignore Rule 13 which
requires a day to day accountability before the
Lambardar. On facts, it is also apparent that the
opium in Bheru Lal's case had been recovered from the
residential house of the accused. In the case before
us, as per the prosecution story, the opium had been
recovered from 3 feet underground.
6. It is equally true that no independent witness
has supported the prosecution story. The evidence of
the official witnesses is, however, supported by the
recovery of the opium and also by the confessions made
by the appellants.
Crl.A. 259 of 2006 REPORTABLE 5
7. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
...... ..................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]
........................J [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD]
NEW DELHI JANUARY 27, 2011.