Sec 54 NDPS Act – Raise Presumption - Recovery  From Accused Must Be Proved  - Supreme Court

Apex Court held in recent judgement (Sanjeet Kumar Singh @ Munna Kumar Singh vs State of Chhattisgarh | 30 August 2022|) that to raise presumption U/s 54 of NDPS Act recovery must be proved.

Apex Court observed while go through the the material on file, the court noted that hostile independent witnesses not only denied having seen anything, but also offered a convincing explanation for how their signatures ended up on the documents. The court noted that the scenario at hand is not a standard, everyday situation in which impartial witnesses are persuaded, and they had no justification to offer regarding their signatures in the Panchanama.

 Apex Court also observed that the burden of proof shifts to the accused to explain how he came into possession of the illegal substances under Section 54 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act of 1985. But it must first be proven that a recovery was achieved from the accused to invoke the assumption under Section 54 of the Act.

Apex Court further observed that independent witness under the NDPS Act When the mandatory procedure is followed and the other police witnesses speak with one voice, independent witnesses turning hostile need not necessarily result in the accused's conviction. But if the Court must I ignore the fact that independent witnesses have not corroborated the testimony of police witnesses and (ii) turn a blind eye to hostile independent witnesses, then the prosecution's story must be convincing, and the testimony of the official witnesses must be particularly reliable. If independent witnesses offer testimony that blows a huge hole in the prosecution's theory about the search and seizure itself, then the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. - Independent witnesses are not always required for confirmation. However, once the prosecution asserts that the search and seizure took place in front of independent witnesses and decides to call them to testify in court, the judge must determine whether the independent witnesses' version of events is credible and whether there is a chance that they have turned against the prosecution.

Sanjeet Kumar Singh 

vs

State of Chhattisgarh