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

PATNA HIGH COURT
Ashutosh Kumar and Harish Kumar, JJ.
Santosh Kumar – Appellant
versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.850 of 2015 with Criminal Appeal (DB) No.720 of 2015 with Criminal Appeal (DB) No.916 of 2015 with Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1018 of 2015
Decided on 1.5.2023

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
(In Criminal Appeal (DB) No.850/2015)
For the Appellants:Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. A.K. Sinha App, Advocate
(In Criminal Appeal (DB) No.720/2015)
For the Appellants:Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. D.K. Sinha App, Advocate
(In Criminal Appeal (DB) No.916/2015)
For the Appellants:Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. S.B. Verma App, Advocate
(In Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1018/2015)
For the Appellants:Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. S.N. Prasad App, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
Seizure of Ganja – Violation of requirement under Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act is fatal to case of prosecution.

Headnote:

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Sections 20 (B) (II) (C) and 52A – Seizure of Ganja – Conviction and sentence – Certificate from FSL that samples sent to them corresponded to Ganja would not bolster up case of prosecution for the reason that nothing is known about manner in which samples were drawn or whether those were drawn from seized narcotics – Even though Magistrate was present at the time of raid, no effort was made to draw sample in his presence – This is clear violation of provisions contained in Section 52A of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 – Bag in which Ganja was kept was also found torn from many places – There was no seal of certification on such material exhibits before Trial Court – Mandatory requirements under N.D.P.S. Act have not been followed – Entire material exhibits of seized articles loses its significance for any adjudication of guilt of appellants – There was no sufficient material for Trial Court to have come to a definite conclusion that samples were drawn from same seized bundles of narcotics from constructive possession of appellants – Requirement under Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act has also been violated with impunity though from personal search of appellants, no narcotics was recovered – Judgment of conviction and order of sentence set aside. (Paras 11, 13, 17 to 22 and 25)

Result: Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

Ashutosh Kumar. J.—We have heard the Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 850 of 2015 (Santosh Kumar); Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 916 of 2015 (Manoj Kumar) and Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1018 of 2015 (Santu Kumar vs. the State of Bihar) together, all of which are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. We have been informed that one more appeal, namely, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 720 of 2015 (Pawan Kumar) is pending consideration before this Court. The file of the aforesaid criminal appeal has been notified and summoned and the same is also being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. We have heard Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Sinha, the learned Appellant in all the appeals and Ms. Shashi Bala Verma, the learned APP for the State.

4. All the appellants stand charged and convicted under Section 20(B)(II)(C) of the NDPS Act, 1985 and they have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 12 years, to pay a fine of Rs. One Lakh each and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year separately.

5. The F.I.R., namely, Bihar P.S. Case No. 217 of 2013 dated 16.07.2013 for offences under Section 20, 21 and 22 of the NDPS Act and Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code was lodged by PW1, who has alleged that at about 3 O’ Clock in the morning of 16.07.2013, he was informed by the Special Task Force that two vehicles; one being a Marshal Jeep and the other, a Honda City Car are likely to come from Biharsharif direction and in those vehicles, Ganja has been loaded.

6. The afore-noted information was reduced in writing and an entry was made in the station diary. A raiding team was constituted by PW1, which included other police officers, who have been cited and examined as PWs 2, 3 and 4. A request was also made to the Sub Divisional Officer, Biharsharif for deputing one Magistrate, consequent upon which, one Bhola Prasad Singh, the Magistrate (PW8) was deputed. The raiding team took its position on the road. Two vehicles of the make of Marshal and Honda City were spotted at around 4.20 A.M. on 16.07.2013 only. When signalled to stop, two persons came out of the Honda City Car and started fleeing away. The afore-noted persons were nabbed by the police party, who disclosed their names as Pawan Kumar and Santu Kumar, the appellants in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 720 of 2015 and Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1018 of 2015 respectively.

7. A search was made in both the vehicles. From Marshal Jeep, 100 bundles of Ganja was recovered whereas from Honda City Car, 57 packets of Ganja were recovered. Each of the packets weighed one kilogram.

8. Two of the other appellants, namely, Manoj Kumar and Pawan Kumar, the appellants in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 916 of 2015 and Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 850/2015 were found sitting in the Marshal Vehicle, who too were arrested. The aforenoted persons disclosed before the police party that the narcotics belonged to one Dilip Sao of Fatuha. The consignment had come from Orissa. PW1 has further stated that the narcotics were sealed in presence of two of the on-lookers and brought to police station whereafter formal F.I.R. and seizure list was prepared. Two of the witnesses of the seizure list have been examined as Pws 5 and 6, namely, Pankaj Kumar and Surendra Prasad respectively, both of whom have not supported the prosecution version.

9. During the trial, PW1 supported the allegations made in the F.I.R. However, during crossexamination, he did not state anything to establish that the arrested persons were given the option of being searched in presence of a Magistrate.

10. There is nothing in the statement of PW1 which would even remotely indicate as to the manner in which the seized articles/ narcotics were sealed or any sample drawn from the same. On the contrary, it has been asserted that it was brought to the police station in the same condition in which it was seized and thereafter it was kept in two bags which were tied up. There is no statement with regard to the same having been sea

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