“5. ………We, reverently and respectfully, tend to agree
with the latter view and would like to add that the rule of
thumb for safe administration of criminal justice is; the
harsher the sentence the stricter the standard of proof. It
is for paramount importance to notice in this context that
the sentences specified in the Control for Narcotic
Substances Act, 1997 depend upon the quantity of the
recovered narcotic substance and not upon the narcotic
content of the recovered substance and, thus, quantity in
such cases is the determinative factor as far as the
sentences are concerned. It is, therefore, absolutely
necessary that in all such cases there should be no room
for doubt as to the exact quantity of the substance
recovered and also as to the entire recovered substance
being narcotic substances. We may also observe that in
such cases it is the accused person who is at the
receiving end of long and stringent punishments and,
thus, safeguards from his point of view ought not to be
allowed to be sacrificed at the altar of mere comfort or
convenience of the prosecution.”
It was further observed as under:
“As is evident from the resume of the precedent cases
mentioned above, the trend of authority of this Court
leans overwhelmingly in favour of obtaining and sending for chemical analysis a separate sample of every
separate packet/cake/slab of the substance allegedly
recovered from an accused person’s possession and for
its separate analysis by the Chemical Examiner in order
to confirm and establish beyond doubt that the entire
quantity of the allegedly recovered substance was indeed
narcotic substance. It is our considered opinion that a
sample taken of a recovered substance must be a
representative sample of the entire substance recovered
and if no sample is taken from any particular packet/
cake/slab or if different samples taken from different
packets/cakes/slabs are not kept separately for their
separate analysis by the Chemical Examiner then the
sample would not be a representative sample and it
would be unsafe to rely on the mere word of mouth of the
prosecution witnesses regarding the substance of which
no sample has been taken or tested being narcotic
substance. It may be true that at least in some situations
the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 stipulates
disproportionately long and harsh sentences and,
therefore, for the purposes of safe administration of
criminal justice some minimum standards of safety are to
be laid down so as to strike a balance between the
prosecution and the defence and to obviate chances of
miscarriage of justice on account of exaggeration by the
investigating agency. Such minimum standards of safety
are even otherwise necessary for safeguarding the
Fundamental Rights of the citizens regarding life and
liberty which cannot be left at the mercy of verbal
assertions of police officers which assertions are not
supported by independent evidence provided by a
Chemical Examiner.”
PLD 2012 SC 380
Used In judgment of:
2019 LHC 1514
0 Comments