SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(SC) 1429

2009(5) Supreme 730
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B. Sinha and Deepak Verma, JJ.
Sarju @ Ramu — Appellant
versus
State of U.P. — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1446 of 2009
[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 7722 of 2008]
Decided on : 07-08-2009

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant :Anup Kumar, Shoeb Alam, Gaurav, Ashok Anand (for Dr. Kailash Chand), Advocates.
For the Respondents:Mohd. Fuzail Khan, Anil Kumar Jha, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
It is now also well settled that the provisions of the NDPS Act being harsh in nature, the procedural safeguards contained therein must scrupulously be complied therewith.

Headnote:Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 8/21 – Recovery of 40 packets of morphine from the right pocket of the sweater of the appellant and about 70 grams of morphine wrapped in a paper from his left pocket-Conviction by Trial Court-Appeal-Dismissed by High Court – Appeal. The FIR disclosed that the information was given at about 6 O’ clock in the morning and the raid was conducted at about 6.15 a.m.- A closer look to the statement made in the FIR showed that in fact according to the informer the accused had been sitting on the road side from before 6 O’clock in the morning – It was, therefore, difficult to believe prosecution story- In a case under the NDPS Act, particularly where such serious allegations are made against the police officials, recovery of contraband in presence of the independent witness assumes significance – It is now also well settled that the provisions of the NDPS Act being harsh in nature, the procedural safeguards contained therein must scrupulously be complied therewith – Appellant at no point of time was informed that he had a statutory right of being searched by a Gazetted Officer-The combined reading of depositions of the prosecution witnesses were pointers to the fact that the so-called consent letters were obtained only after they had been arrested- Even in relation to preparation of consent letters, there was a glaring discrepancy- Nothing had been brought on record to show that the provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act were substantially complied with – Impugned judgment held unsustainable-Appeal allowed. (Paras 11 to 19)

       Facts of the Case :

        1. Appellant was convicted u/s Section 8/21 of NDPS Act on Recovery of 40 packets of morphine from right pocket of his sweater and about 70 grams of morphine wrapped in a paper from his left pocket.On appeal, High Court confirmed conviction of appellant.

        2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.

       Findings of the Court :

        The FIR disclosed that the information was given at about 6 O’ clock in the morning and the raid was conducted at about 6.15 a.m. A closer look to the statement made in the FIR showed that in fact according to the informer the accused had been sitting on the road side from before 6 O’clock in the morning. It was, therefore, difficult to believe prosecution story. In a case under the NDPS Act, particularly where such serious allegations are made against the police officials, recovery of contraband in presence of the independent witness assumes significance. It is now also well settled that the provisions of the NDPS Act being harsh in nature, the procedural safeguards contained therein must scrupulously be complied therewith. Appellant at no point of time was informed that he had a statutory right of being searched by a Gazetted Officer. The combined reading of depositions of the prosecution witnesses were pointers to the fact that the so-called consent letters were obtained only after they had been arrested. Even in relation to preparation of consent letters, there was a glaring discrepancy. Nothing had been brought on record to show that the provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act were substantially complied with. Impugned judgment hence held unsustainable. Appeal was allowed

       Result-Appeal allowed.

       

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.—

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal by special leave arises out of a judgment and order dated 30th January 2008 passed by a learned single judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No. 491 of 1991 whereby and whereunder the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 4th September 1991 passed by the V Additional Sessions Judge, Barabanki in Sessions Trial Nos. 393 of 1989 and 395 of 1989 convicting the appellant for commission of an offence punishable under Section 8/21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, “NDPS Act”) and sentencing him to undergo 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment as also the fine of Rs.1 lakh, and in default, to undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment, was affirmed.

3. Shrikant Mishra was the Station House Officer (SHO) of Safdarganj Police Station situate in the district of Barabanki. He and other members of the police party were on a patrolling duty. They came out of the Police Station in the night of 5th January 1989 with Constable No.56 Ram Shankar Srivastava (P.W.3) and Constable No.277 - Vidya Prasad Pandey. They reached near a village commonly known as “Baghaura” in the official jeep No. UHG 4682, which was driven by one Satyadev Ojha.

4. An informer allegedly reported to the appellants as also one Shobhalal of village Baghaura and Ramdutt @ Dutta of village Bariarpur illegally selling morphine in packets to the truck drivers and the people of the area. According to the said informer, they were said to have been sitting on the road side near the mill of one Vishwanath Kashyap from 6 O’clock in the morning. Appellant along with said Shobhalal and Ramdutt were said to have been identified by the said police party to be sitting on the road side at about 6.15 a.m. They became a bit perplexed and frightened after seeing the police party. “Being assured”, Shrikant Mishra, Officer-in-charge, went to Barabanki to obtain authority letter for the purpose of carrying out search and seizure. He instructed the other constables to keep an eye on them. He upon obtaining the authority letter allegedly came back from Barabanki after some time. He requested some passer-by to become witness to the seizure. They allegedly refused.

5. Letters of consent were prepared in the names of accused to the effect that they were ready and willing to be searched by the Officer-in-Charge in stead and place of a Gazetted Officer. Persons of all the accused were searched. From the right pocket of the sweater of the appellant 40 packets of morphine and from his left pocket about 70 grams of morphine wrapped in a paper were found. From the person of Shobhalal about 82 grams of morphine was found; whereas from the person of Ram Dutt about 53 grams of morphine was recovered.

6. Appellant, however, has a different story to tell. According to him, the SHO as also the constables had an evil eye on the appellant’s wife. They came to his house at about 9.00 p.m. in the night of 5/6.1.1989 while his wife was serving the food to the children. He was not well. When the door of his house was knocked by a constable, his wife who examined herself as D.W.1 came out of the house and saw the Constable and the SHO. The constable was used to be called by local people as “Lala”. They enquired about him. When D.W. 1 wanted to call him, the said constable said that there was no work with him but it was with her. He thereafter told the SHO that this was the same woman who goes to Chakki for grinding. On hearing that, she started going back to her house. The said constable advanced towards her. She shouted loudly. On her shouting, Sohan Lal and the appellant came. D.W. 1 was slapped by the said constable 2-3 times and thereafter the appellant was arrested. D.W.1 along with Sohan Lal and her brother-in-law went to Barabanki to the house of the Superintendent of Police by truck. The Superintendent of Police was described as ‘Captain Sahib”. They could not mee












































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top