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

UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Alok Kumar Verma, J.
Devendra Singh Malik – Appellant
versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1 of 2006
Decided on 10.4.2023

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant: Mr. Sandeep Adhikari, Amicus Curiae (through video conferencing)
For the Respondent:Mr. S.T. Bhardwaj, Deputy Advocate General

IMPORTANT POINT
Non-compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act, 1985 makes sufficient case for acquittal.

Headnote:

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Sections 20 and 50 – Seizure of Charas – Conviction and sentence – When law provides for doing of an act in a particular manner, it necessarily prohibits doing of that act in any other manner – In present matter, appellant was not informed of his legal right – Non-compliance of Section 50 of Act, 1985 makes sufficient case for acquittal – Impugned judgment of conviction and sentence set aside and Appellant acquitted. (Paras 20 and 21)

Result: Criminal Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

Alok Kumar Verma, J.—Present Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 15.12.2005, passed by learned Special Sessions Judge, Champawat in Special Sessions Trial No. 03 of 2003, “State vs. Devendra Singh Malik”, by which, the appellant Devendra Singh Malilk has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years along with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the offence under Section 18 read with Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, “Act, 1985”).

2. Facts to the limited extent necessary, are that on 07.11.2003, Sub-Inspector K.P. Singh (PW1), Constable Ramesh Ram and Constable Mubarik Hassan Rizvi (PW3) were on patrolling duty. When they reached near the bridge, they saw the accused coming from Nepal. Seeing the police, he started going back. On suspicion, he was apprehended at 15:00 hrs. He was asked the reason for running away. He told that he had one kilogram Charas. On enquiry, he told his name and address. Sub-Inspector K.P. Singh told the accused that he has to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazette Officer, so does he want to go to any of them for search. The accused said that he has full faith in him. He does not want to go to anyone. The accused asked him to search. His personal search was conducted. On search, Charas (Material Ext. 1) was recovered from his pajama he was wearing. On weighing, its weight was found to be one kilogram. He was arrested. In spite of an endeavour, no public witness could be secured. The recovered article was seized. The said recovered article was taken into possession vide recovery memo (Ext. Ka3). An FIR (Ext. Ka4) was lodged by Sub-Inspector K.P. Singh. Sample of recovered material was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Agra. On examination, the Chemical Examiner found the same to be “Charas”. Charge-sheet was filed after completion of investigation.

3. Charge under Section 18 read with Section 20 of the Act, 1985 was framed. Appellant-accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. Prosecution in support of his case, examined five witnesses.

5. (PW1) Sub-Inspector K.P. Singh, informant, and (PW3) Constable Mubarik Hassan Rizvi were members of arresting party.

6. (PW2) Constable Laxman Chand is the scribe of the First Information Report.

7. (PW4) Station Officer B.C. Pant is the Investigating Officer. He proved the charge-sheet (Ext. ka 9).

8. (PW5) Head Constable Hansraj Singh produced 100 gram sample of the recovered material in sealed condition before the Special Court on 11.11.2003 and on 14.11.2003, he made the sample available to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Agra.

9. The Special Court examined Alok Shukla, Senior Scientist, (CW1) as a Court witness. He proved the report (Ext. Ka 7) of Forensic Science Laboratory, Agra.

10. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He denied all the incriminating evidence, produced by the prosecution.

11. Accused has not adduced any defence evidence.

12. Mr. Sandeep Adhikari, learned Amicus Curiae, contended that mandatory provision of Section 50 of the Act, 1985, was not followed by the searching party. Appellant was not informed of his legal right by the searching officer. Therefore, the impugned judgment is bad in the eyes of law.

13. On the other hand, Mr. S.T. Bhardwaj, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State, has supported the impugned judgment.

14. As per the Table prepared in terms of Section 2 (XXiiia) and Section 2 (Viia) of the Act, 1985, lesser than 100 grams of Charas is small quantity and greater than 1 kg is commercial quantity (Entry No. 23). Therefore, according to the prosecution, recovered contraband was non-commercial.

15. The provisions of Section 50 of the Act, 1985 are as under:—

“50. Conditions under which search of persons shall be conducted—(1) When any officer duly authorised under Section 42 is about to search any person under the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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