DHARAMPAL SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB

CITATION	(2010) 9 SCC 608
DATE OF JUDGMENT	9th September, 2010
COURT	The Supreme Court of India
APPELLANT	Dharampal Singh
RESPONDENT	State of Punjab
BENCH	H.S. Bedi and C.K. Prasad, JJ.

INTRODUCTION:

The case of Dharampal Singh and Major Singh v. State of Punjab revolves around the possession of opium by the appellants under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The prosecution alleged that the appellants were found in conscious possession of 65 kilograms of opium recovered from the dicky (trunk) of the car they were driving and occupying.

The trial court initially acquitted the appellants, citing non-compliance with Section 50 of the Act, which mandates certain procedures during search and seizure. However, the High Court overturned the acquittal, emphasizing that the recovery from the car’s dicky established conscious possession by the appellants. The court considered witness testimonies and the Chemical Examiner’s report as evidence supporting the prosecution’s case.

The defence raised arguments challenging the conscious possession of the opium, the lack of independent witnesses during the search, and the nature of the substance recovered. Despite these contentions, the court ultimately upheld the conviction of the appellants based on the established possession of the opium beyond a reasonable doubt.

This case highlights the importance of proving conscious possession in drug-related offenses and the standards of evidence required in such cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

FACTS:

The case involved the appellants, Dharampal Singh and Major Singh, who were driving and occupying a car from which 65 kilograms of opium were recovered from the dicky (trunk) of the vehicle. The prosecution alleged that the appellants were in possession of the opium found in the car. The High Court set aside the order of acquittal by the trial court and convicted the appellants based on the recovery of opium from the car.

The prosecution presented evidence of the recovery of opium from the car, including the testimony of witnesses such as Jagmohan Singh, Inspector, and Narinder Pal Singh, Superintendent of Police. A sample of the opium was taken and sent to the Chemical Examiner, who confirmed it to be opium.

The case primarily focused on the possession of the opium recovered from the car driven and occupied by the appellants, leading to their conviction under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

ISSUES RAISED:

The main issue in the case was the possession of opium by the appellants, Dharampal Singh and Major Singh, who were driving and occupying a car from which 65 kilograms of opium were recovered from the dicky (trunk) of the vehicle.

CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE PROSECUTION:

The prosecution argued that the appellants, Dharampal Singh and Major Singh, were in conscious possession of the 65 kilograms of opium that was recovered from the dicky (trunk) of the car they were driving and occupying. The prosecution relied on the provisions of Sections 35 and 54 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, to establish the conscious possession of the opium by the appellants.

The prosecution presented evidence, including witness testimonies and the report of the Chemical Examiner, to support their case that the appellants were in possession of the opium. The prosecution contended that the evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellants were consciously possessing the illicit substance.

CONTENTIONS BY THE DEFENCE

Argued that the mere fact that the opium was found in the dicky (trunk) of the car driven by the appellant, Dharampal Singh, did not establish conscious possession of the opium. The defence emphasized the need for conscious possession to establish guilt under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The defence also raised concerns about the lack of independent witnesses during the search and seizure process, questioning the reliability of the prosecution’s case due to this absence. However, the court found that the absence of independent witnesses did not undermine the prosecution’s case.

The defence further contended that the substance recovered from the appellants was not opium. This argument was based on the evidence presented by a witness, Swaran Kumar, the Malkhana Clerk of the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, who stated that the substance sent for testing did not contain any alkaloid.

JUDGEMENT:

The court, in its judgment, addressed the issue of possession of opium by the appellants, Dharampal Singh and Major Singh. The court considered the evidence of the recovery of 65 kilograms of opium from the car driven and occupied by the appellants. The court found that the prosecution had established that the appellants were in conscious possession of the opium based on the circumstances surrounding the recovery of the illicit substance from the vehicle. The court held that the appellants’ possession of the opium was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to their conviction under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Additionally, the court rejected the defence’s arguments regarding the lack of independent witnesses during the search and seizure process and the contention that the substance recovered was not opium. The court found that these arguments did not undermine the prosecution’s case and upheld the conviction of the appellants based on the evidence presented.

Overall, the court’s judgment focused on the conscious possession of the opium by the appellants, ultimately leading to their conviction in the case.

CONCLUSION:

In conclusion, the case of Dharampal Singh and Major Singh v. State of Punjab involved the possession of opium by the appellants. The court found that the prosecution had successfully proven that the appellants were in conscious possession of 65 kilograms of opium recovered from the vehicle they were driving and occupying. The court rejected the defence’s arguments regarding the lack of independent witnesses and the nature of the substance recovered, holding that these did not undermine the prosecution’s case.

Ultimately, the court upheld the conviction of the appellants under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, based on the established conscious possession of the opium. The judgment emphasized the need for a higher degree of proof in cases involving serious offenses under the Act and highlighted the importance of establishing possession beyond a reasonable doubt.

REFERENCE

1. Manupatra 
2. https://indiankanoon.org

This Article is written by Ramendra Singh student of CPJ CHS & SoL, GGSIPU; Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.