Case Brief: Harjit Singh v State of Punjab

FACTS:
On 4.7.2003, the police party spotted the appellant carrying a plastic bag in his  right hand. On seeing  the police, the appellant  turned to the left side of the road. The police party   apprehended   the   appellant,   being suspicious of him. In the meantime,  Ashok Kumar, an independent witness   also   came   to   the   spot   and   joined   the   police   party. The appellant was apprised of his right of being searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer and in that respect his statement was recorded. Shri   Dinesh   Partap   Singh,   Assistant   Superintendent   of   Police, was summoned to the spot by the Investigating Officer and in his presence, Amarjit   Singh, Inspector (P.W.3) searched the plastic bag of the appellant and the substance contained therein was found to be opium. The total opium was found to be 7.10 Kgs.
After completion of investigation and on receipt of the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory, confirming the contents of the sample to be   of   opium,   a   charge-sheet   was   filed   against   him   for   the   offence punishable under Section 18 of the NDPS Act. He did not plead guilty to the charges and claimed trial.
STATEMENT OF THE APPELLANT:
In   his   statement   under   Section   313   of   the   Code   of   Criminal Procedure,   1973,   the   appellant   stated   that   the   prosecution   case   was false; he had been taken by the police from his house and Rs.6,000/- had been snatched from him; he was not physically fit even to walk as he had met with an accident in 1999.
HELD BY THE TRIAL COURT:
The   Trial   Court  held   that   the appellant   was   guilty   of  the   offences   charged   with   and   was  awarded the   sentence  to undergo RI for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- in default whereof, to undergo further RI for 6 months.
Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court which has been dismissed. Hence, this appeal lies before the Supreme Court.
ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANT:
The learned counsel primarily   submitted   that   as   the   opium   recovered   from   the   appellant weighing   7.10   kgs.   contained   0.8%   morphine,   i.e.   56.96   gms.,   the quantity was below the commercial quantity, however, more than the minimum   quantity   prescribed   under   the   Notification   issued   in   this respect,   the   maximum   sentence   awarded   by   the   court   was unwarranted. The counsel placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in E. Micheal Raj v Intelligence  Officer,  Narcotic Control Bureau, (2008) 5 SCC 161.
JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT:
The Court observed that in   the   instant   case,   the   material   recovered   from   the   appellant was opium.  It was of a commercial quantity and could not have been for personal consumption of the appellant.   Thus the appellant being in possession of the contraband substance had violated the provisions of Section 8 of the NDPS Act and was rightly convicted under Section 18(b) of the NDPS Act. It further added that the judgment of E. Micheal Raj’s case is not applicable in the present case as there was no mixture of   opium   with   any   other   neutral   substance. Hence, the petition was dismissed.