The Punjab and Haryana High Court observed that the evidentiary value of the official witnesses is at par with the private witnesses and the statements of the official witnesses cannot be rejected only on the ground of their official status and certain minor inconsistencies are bound to creep into the testimonies of the witnesses, who were truthful and this can never be a ground for rejection of the testimonies of such witnesses.
Brief Facts:
The accused was apprehended by the police based on suspicion. After the search of the accused, charas and opium were recovered from the appellant and accordingly charges under Sections 20(b)(II) (B) and 17(b) of the NDPS Act were ordered to be framed by the Special Judge but the accused claimed that he was falsely implicated in the matter.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the mandatory provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act were not followed and the appellant thus is liable to be acquitted by this Court. It was further argued that the offer given to the appellant under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was defective and the absence of any public witness with the police party indicates that the entire case has been fabricated. It was further stated that there were material contradictions in the testimonies of various official witnesses.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing for the state argued that the provision of Section 42 of the NDPS Act would not apply in the current case as the recovery was made from a public place and rather the provisions of Section 43 would apply. It was further argued that the accused opted that his search might be conducted in the presence of a gazetted officer and simply because another notice was served upon the accused, it would not make much of a difference as it was not the mandatory requirement of law. It was further stated that the trial Court had recorded detailed findings while delivering the impugned judgment of conviction.
Observations of the Court:
The court observed that Section 42 of the NDPS Act would not be applicable in the present case and seizure having been affected in a public place, Section 43 of the NDPS Act would be applicable. The court after relying on the judgement in Directorate of Revenue and Anr. vs. Mohammad, Nisar Holia stated that there was no violation of a mandatory provision of Section 50 of the NDPS Act as the appellant was apprised of his right to get his search conducted either in the presence of a gazetted officer or a Magistrate, which was the requirement of law.
The court observed that the evidentiary value of the official witnesses is at par with the private witnesses and the statements of the official witnesses cannot be rejected only on the ground of their official status. The court stated that as a rule of caution, the courts must be careful in scrutinising the testimonies of such official witnesses, but at the same time, it cannot be grounds for disbelieving and discarding their testimonies. It was further stated that the witnesses get a chance to appear before the court after a long period and certain minor inconsistencies are bound to creep into the testimonies of the witnesses, who were truthful and this can never be a ground for rejection of the testimonies of such witnesses.
The decision of the Court:
The court partly allowed the appeal and reduced the sentence of the appellant after taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances of the appellant.
Case Title: Yogesh @ Pappe vs. State of Haryana
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S Shekhawat
Case No.: CRA-S-978-SB-2005(O&M)
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. B.S Saroha
Advocate for the Respondent: Ms. Sheenu Sura, DAG, Haryana
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
