Kallu Khan v. State of Rajasthan

Constitution of India – Article 136 Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court Scope of Interference.

Interference in exercise of the power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India can only be called for when the judgment of the lower court is vitiated by gross error. Interference can be made when a question of law of general public importance arises or a decision shocks the conscience of the Court. In case, the finding is vitiated by any error of law or procedure or found contrary to the principles of natural justice, and misreading of the evidence, or where the conclusions of the High Court are manifestly perverse and unsupportable from the evidence on record, interference under Article 136 can be called for. [Para 17]

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 – Section 50 – Non­compliance of In the search of motor cycle at public place, the seizure of contraband was made, as revealed. Therefore, compliance of Section 50 does not attract in the present case. In the case of personal search only, the provisions of Section 50 of the Act is required to be complied with but not in the case of vehicle as in the present case. [Para 15]

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985Merely because independent witnesses were not examined, the conclusion could not be drawn that accused was falsely implicated. When the conduct of the accused was found suspicious and a chance recovery from the vehicle used by him is made from public place and proved beyond reasonable doubt, the Accused cannot avail any benefit on this issue. [Para 16]

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 Non-­production of contraband in the courtIf seizure is otherwise proved and the samples taken from and out of contraband material were kept intact; the report of forensic expert shows potency, nature and quality of contraband material, essential ingredients constituting offence are made out and the non-­production of contraband in the Court is not fatal.

When the seizure of material is proved on record and is not even disputed, the entire contraband material need not be placed on record. It is not a case in which the accused has proved beyond reasonable doubt that while sending the samples for forensic tests, seals were not intact or the procedure has been materially not followed by protecting the seized substance or was not stored properly. [Para 14]

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 the findings concurrently recorded by the Courts holding the accused guilty for the charges and to direct him to undergo sentence as prescribed, do not suffer from any perversity, illegality, warranting interference by this Court. [Para 18]

Case Law Reference

  1. S.K. Sakkar v. State of West Bengal, (2021) 4 SCC 483
  2. Rizwan Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2020) 9 SCC 627
  3. Than Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2020) 5 SCC 260
  4. Surinder Kumar v. State of Punjab, (2020) 2 SCC 563
  5. State of Rajasthan v. Sahi Ram, (2019) 10 SCC 649
  6. State of Punjab v. Baljinder Singh, (2019) 10 SCC 473
  7. S.K. Raju v. State of West Bengal, (2018) 9 SCC 708
  8. Union of India v. Mohanlal, (2016) 3 SCC 379
  9. Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, (2011) 3 SCC 521
  10. Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 1 SCC 609
  11. Ganga Kumar Srivastava v. State of Bihar, (2005) 6 SCC 211
  12. State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal, (1988) 4 SCC 302