CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Ramesh Sinha, C.J. and Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.
Bhupendra Singh @ Rana and Anr. – Appellants
(In Jail)
versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.718 of 2022 and Criminal Appeal No.1310 of 2023
Decided on 2.1.2024
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Sections 20(b)(ii) (C) and 52A – Recovery of Ganja – Conviction and sentence – Independent witnesses have not supported prosecution case – Witness of weighing has also not supported case of prosecution – Samples from seized substance were drawn by police in presence of Gazetted Officer and not in presence of Magistrate – There is no material on record to prove that Magistrate had certified inventory of substance seized or of list of samples so drawn – Samples drawn in presence of Magistrate and list thereof on being certified alone would constitute primary evidence for the purposes of trial – Prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt – Trial Court has committed grave legal error in convicting and sentencing appellants for offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act – Appellants acquitted of charge under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act. (Paras 14, 20, 21, 25 and 26)
(B) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Sections 20(b)(ii) (C) and 52A – Recovery of Ganja – In any such cases, if prosecution is launched, investigating agency should strictly follow mandatory provisions under relevant Act so that accused may not take benefit of such lapses as offence like present one which is offence against society weakens basic structure of society – Such offence has to be dealt with strictly in accordance with law with heavy hand in order to protect future of this country. (Para 30)
Result: Criminal Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT (CAV)
Ramesh Sinha, C.J.—Since the aforesaid two criminal appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment dated 18.04.2022 passed by the Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), Raipur in Special Criminal Case No.08/18, they were clubbed & heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Appellant-Bhupendra Singh @ Rana has preferred Criminal Appeal No.718/2022 under Section 374(2) of the CrPC questioning the impugned judgment dated 18.04.2022 passed by the Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), Raipur in Special Criminal Case No.08/18, by which he has been convicted for offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called as ‘NDPS Act’) and sentenced him undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and fine of Rs.2,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years.
3. Appellant-Hardeep Singh @ Sandeep has preferred Criminal Appeal No.1310/2022 under Section 374(2) of the CrPC questioning the impugned judgment dated 18.04.2022 passed by the Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), Raipur in Special Criminal Case No.08/18, by which he has been convicted for offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act and sentenced him undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and fine of Rs.2,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years.
4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 14.11.2017 the present appellants were found in illegal possession of 10 qunital 75 kgs Ganja which they were transporting in truck bearing No. NL 02 Q 0304. The said truck was coming from Andhra Pradesh to Raipur. Upon informant’s information the police raided the place of occurrence and thereafter the appellants have been prosecuted in Crime No.06/2017 registered at Police Station Kabirnagar, District Raipur for offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 14.11.2017, Inspector Kishore Kumar Kerketta of Police Station-Kabirnagar, Raipur received a secret information that 12 wheeler truck bearing number-NL-02/Q-0304, which is coming to Raipur from Andhra Pradesh, in which the truck owner is also sitting, is transporting huge quantity of contraband article ganja. By recording the said information in Rojnamcha Sanha No. 20 dated 14.11.2017 (Ex.P-35), Informer Information Panchnama (Ex.P-36) was prepared and after that information about the informer information was sent through Constable No. 2655 Manish Kumar to CSP Azad Chowk and also sent Constable No. 2524 Praveen Kumar to summon the witness, which was mentioned in Sanha No. 21 (Ex.P-37), gave a memorandum to Constable No. 2655 Manish Kumar regarding informer information and sent it to CSP Azad Chowk office, whose return was recorded at Sanha No.23 (Ex.P-39). After that the police along with staff, witnesses, whose departure was recorded at Sanha No. 24 (Ex.-40) and gave his consent for informing the informer.
5. After reaching the place near Nukkad Petrol Pump, Hirapur, the accused were informed by the informer that he had received information from the informer that a huge quantity of ganja was being transported in the vehicle, the said vehicle could be searched by him or by any gazetted officer. In this regard, a notice under section 50 of the NDPS Act (Ex.P-1) was given, the accused had prepared Consent Panchnama (Ex.P-2). After giving their consent to search the vehicle, they conducted their search with the accused in the presence of police force and witnesses, in which no objectionable item was recovered. Search panchnama (Exs.P-4, P-5 and P-6) were prepared in this regard. According to the prosecution story, when the investigator put his staff in the truck’s cabin, the staff saw that there was ganja in the bags, in connection with which drug recovery panchnama (Ex.P-7) was prepared. Labourers sitting near the petrol pump were summoned and explained to them and prepared a separate panchnama (Ex.
Recovery of Ganja – Samples drawn in presence of Magistrate and list thereof on being certified alone would constitute primary evidence for the purposes of trial.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of strict compliance with the procedural provisions of the NDPS Act, particularly Section 52A(2), (3) and (4), for seizure and s....
Failure to comply with mandatory procedures under the NDPS Act vitiates conviction, necessitating primary evidence for a valid trial.
Mandatory compliance with NDPS Act's provisions for seizure and evidence is essential; failure leads to invalidation of convictions.
Possession of narcotic substances can result in conviction under NDPS despite procedural non-compliance if evidentiary strength supports prosecution's claims.
The prosecution must prove possession of narcotics beyond reasonable doubt, and procedural lapses do not automatically invalidate a conviction if credible evidence supports the case.
Strict adherence to procedural requirements in the NDPS Act is essential for securing convictions; failure to follow these mandates can lead to acquittal.
The conviction under the NDPS Act was quashed due to failure to comply with mandatory procedures for sample collection, emphasizing the importance of due process in narcotics cases.
Prosecution's failure to comply with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act led to the acquittal of the appellants due to insufficient evidence.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.