whether Satish and Dharambir can be convicted for carrying commercial quantity for which minimum punishment is ten years. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the police has recovered 500 grams from each of these accused and on personal search of their body, it was recovered from the pockets of kurta and pant respectively. It is urged that though each of these three accused was separately having charas, no presumption can be drawn that each of them knew that the other was carrying charas. In this case unfortunately the prosecution has failed to lead any evidence in this regard which would even remotely indicate that all the three accused acted together or connived or conspired with each other in the purchase and sale of charas. There is not even a whisper in this behalf.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal  No(s).  205-206/2010
SATISH & ANR. ETC.                                     Appellant(s)
                                VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA                                Respondent(s)
  O R D E R
These two appeals arise out of the judgment and order
dated   22.10.2008   passed   by   the   High   Court   of   Punjab   and
Haryana in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1164-SB of 2000 and 1185-
SB of 2000.
Facts necessary for decision of this case are that on
29.08.1999,   Amar   Dass   (PW7)   was   present   at   Sonepat   T-
point,   Gohana   when   Baljeet   Singh   (PW6)   met   him.     He
received  secret  information  that  the  three  accused  Raju,
Dharambir   and   Satish   are   indulging   in   the   sale   of
contraband substance and they would be coming on a motor
cycle   bearing   No.   HR-11-9597.     According   to   secret
information   received   by   him,   all   three   accused   would   be
carrying   charas.     He   accordingly   setup   a   Naka   and
attempted   to   stop   the   motor   cycle.     On   seeing   the   Naka,
the   motor   cycle   did   not   stop   and   drove   towards   Sonepat.
The   accused   were,   however,   apprehended   and   the   motor
cycle was stopped. 
PW7 informed the accused that they were suspected of
1

carrying   contraband   substance   and   therefore   gave   the
option   to   them   that   they   could   be   searched   either   by   a
Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer.  Written notice in this
behalf   was   given   to   the   accused.     However,   Raju   alias
Rajbeer   managed   to   run   away   from   the   spot   after   leaving
his   packet   on   the   motor   cycle.     500   grams   of   charas   was
recovered from the pockets of kurta and pant of the other
two accused - Satish and Dharambir.  After completing all
formalities,   drawing   samples,   getting   them   analysed   the
accused   were   charged   with   commission   of   offence
punishable   under   Section   20C   of   the   Narcotic   Drugs   and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.   Both the Trial Court
and   the   High   Court   have   considered   them.     Hence   these
appeals.
As   far   as   Raju   is   concerned,   his   stand   was   that   he
was neither present nor driving the motor cycle.   As far
as this aspect is concerned, the prosecution has examined
Chand Singh (PW8) who stated that Raju is the brother-in-
law   of   brother   Baljeet   Singh   and   Raju   had   come   to   him   a
year   back   along   with   the   accused   Dharambir   and   at   that
time he already had a motor cycle.  The statement of Raju
that he was not on the motor cycle cannot be believed.
After   going   through   the   evidence   on   merits   and   with
regard to recovery of charas from the accused, we do not
find   any   reason   to   disbelieve   the   same.     We   accordingly
hold that all the three accused are guilty of committing
an   offence   under   Section   20   of   the   Narcotic   Drugs   and
2

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 
However, the issue raised before us is whether Satish
and   Dharambir   can   be   convicted   for   carrying   commercial
quantity   for   which   minimum   punishment   is   ten   years.
Learned   counsel   for   the   appellants   submits   that   the
police has recovered 500 grams from each of these accused
and   on   personal   search   of   their   body,   it   was   recovered
from the pockets of kurta and pant respectively.
It   is   urged   that   though   each   of   these   three   accused
was separately having charas, no presumption can be drawn
that   each   of   them   knew   that   the   other   was   carrying
charas.     In   this   case   unfortunately   the   prosecution   has
failed   to   lead   any   evidence   in   this   regard   which   would
even   remotely   indicate   that   all   the   three   accused   acted
together or connived or conspired with each other in the
purchase and sale of charas.  There is not even a whisper
in this behalf.
In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case,
we   convert   the   conviction   of   Satish   and   Dharambir   from
Section   20C   to   Section   20B   of   the   Narcotic   Drugs   and
Psychotropic   Substances   Act,   1985.       In   such   an
eventuality,   the   maximum   imprisonment   is   ten   years   and
fine   of   Rs.1,00,000/-   (Rupees   one   lac   only).     We   alter
the   sentence   to   the   period   already   undergone   which   is
about   5   years   and   maintain   fine.     As   far   as   Raju   is
concerned,   the   evidence   on   record   is   sufficient   to   hold
him   guilty   for   carrying   commercial   quantity   and   his
3

appeal is dismissed.
The criminal appeals stand disposed of.
� ....................J.
[DEEPAK GUPTA]
� ....................J.
[ANIRUDDHA BOSE]
NEW DELHI;
August 28, 2019.
4

ITEM NO.103               COURT NO.13               SECTION II-B
               S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal  No(s).  205-206/2010
SATISH & ANR. ETC.                                     Appellant(s)
                                VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA                                Respondent(s)

Date : 28-08-2019  These appeals were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE
For Appellant(s) Dr.  Krishan Singh Chauhan, AOR
Mr. Chand Kiran, Adv.
Mr. S.P. Singh, Adv.
Mr. R.S.M. Kalky, Adv.
Mr. Murari Lal, Adv.
                 
For Respondent(s) Mr. Gautam Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Tushar Sharma, Adv.
Dr. Monika Gusain, AOR
Mr. Deepak Thukral, Adv.
Ms. Manpreet Kaur, Adv.
                   
         UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                             O R D E R
The   criminal   appeals   are   disposed   of   in   terms   of   the   signed
order.
Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(MEENAKSHI  KOHLI)                              (R.S. NARAYANAN)
  COURT MASTER                                    COURT MASTER
[Signed order is placed on the file]
5