By: Ishita Pancholi

JUDGES: Justices Ashok Bhushan, MR Shah, and R. Subhash Reddy

JUDGEMENT DATE: 10/09/2020


The Accused no.1 and each other – Pukhraj were charged for the offense under Section 20(b) (ii) (B) of the NDPS Act, possessing 20 kg each precluded Narcotic Substance Ganja. According to the instance of the arraignment, 20 kg of Ganja was recuperated from the ownership of the appealing party from the bike.

Nothing offensive was found from the individual of the charged. Blamed were educated about Section 50 for the NDPS Act through a notification and were likewise told about their lawful rights that on the off chance that they need their pursuit was to be done either by an officer or Judicial Magistrate of First Class or some other examining official.

Subsequent to giving consent that the inquiry can be led by any researching official, charged was approached to open the sack kept on his bike, and on opening the equivalent, a pack of Ganja weighing 20kg was found. Panchnama was made of seizures. Tests of opiates recuperated from the charges were tried by smelling, consuming, and tasting it and was discovered to be Ganja.

A recognizable proof panchnama was readied. The Ganja recouped from the blamed was around 20 kg, out of which two parcels each of around 100 gm were made for testing, and afterward, the weight panchnama was made.

The bundles of the substance made were sent to the research center for testing through constable. The substance held onto was discovered to be Ganja. On culmination of the examination against the denounced under the NDPS Act, the litigant and each other – Pukhraj were charge-sheeted for the offense under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, and another co-accused Rakesh Kumar was charged for the offense under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act.

All the blamed argued not blameworthy and in this way, they came to be pursued for the previously mentioned offenses. In the current case, we are worried about the unique charged – Rizwan Khan and in this way, we will consider the body of evidence against Rizwan Khan.


To demonstrate the body of evidence against the denounced, the indictment analyzed eight observers, out of which Bholu and Kanhaiya are the autonomous observers.  Sudeep Prasad Mishra is the constable who had taken the examples to FSL, was the cop who recorded the data and from that point, the Ashish Shukla researched the case after enrolment of the FIR.

The indictment additionally delivered on record the narrative proof, for example, seizure notice, FSL report, and so on. After the conclusion of the proof for the benefit of the arraignment, the further proclamation of the denounced under Section 313, Cr.P.C., 1973 was recorded. The case in the interest of the litigant – unique blamed no.1 was for absolute refusal.

After the finish of the preliminary and on energy about the proof on record, the educated Special Judge held the charged liable for the offense under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act and condemned him to go through five years thorough detainment with fine of Rs.25,000/ -, in default, to go through further one year’s thorough detainment.


The judgment in Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab [1], depended on by the direction for the respondent State additionally bolsters the instance of the arraignment. In the previously mentioned judgment, this Court has held that simply in light of the fact that arraignment didn’t inspect any autonomous observer, would not really lead to an end that the charge was erroneously involved. The proof of authentic observers can’t be doubted and distrusted, only because of their official status.

 In-State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sunil[2], It is an obsolete thought that activities of the cop ought to be drawn nearer with introductory doubt. It is time currently to begin putting at any rate beginning trust on the activities and the reports made by the police. At any rate, the court can’t begin with the assumption that the police records are deceitful.

As a recommendation of law, the assumption ought to be the other route round. That official demonstrations of the police have been consistently performed is a guideline of assumption and perceived even by the council.

Applying the law set somewhere near this Court on the proof of police authorities/police observers to the realities of the case close by, alluded to hereinabove, we are of the assessment as the police observers are discovered to be solid and dependable, no blunder has been submitted by both the courts underneath in indicting the blamed depending upon the statement for the police authorities.


The Supreme Court has seen that to demonstrate the case under the NDPS Act, the responsibility for the vehicle from which the stash is seized isn’t needed to be set up.

[1]Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, (2011) 3 SCC 521.

[2]State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sunil, (2001) 1 SCC 652.

Case Notes

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: