Back
2011 Supreme(Pat) 1175
PATNA HIGH COURT
Rajendra Kumar Mishra and shyam Kishore Sharma JJ.
Mintu Mahaton Son Of Late Dipa Mahato
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal Appeal No. 140 of 2009
Decided On : JUNE 24, 2011
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the validity of search and seizure beyond a shadow of all reasonable doubt, along with the presumption of validity arising from the seizure list being signed by witnesses and the accused.
Headnote:
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act - Illegal Possession of Ganja - Sections 20, 23 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Sections 20 and 23 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act were referenced and discussed by the court. The court analyzed the provisions related to the power of entry, search, seizure, and arrest without warrant or authorization under Section 42 of the Act, as well as the procedure for search and seizure under Section 100 of the Cr.P.C. The court also considered the validity of the seizure and the examination of the seized article by the Forensic Science Laboratory. The key legal provisions influenced the court's decision in establishing the validity of the search and seizure, the presumption of validity arising from the seizure list being signed by witnesses and the accused, and the requirement to prove the seizure beyond a shadow of all reasonable doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for illegal possession of Ganja under Sections 20 and 23 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act. The case involved a raid at the appellant's house where 35 packets of Ganja were seized. The prosecution proved the charge against the appellant, leading to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had proved the charge against the appellant beyond a shadow of all reasonable doubts, justifying the judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the search and seizure, the examination of the seized article by the Forensic Science Laboratory, and the non-examination of the Investigating Officer causing prejudice to the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the validity of the search and seizure, the presumption of validity arising from the seizure list being signed by witnesses and the accused, and the requirement to prove the seizure beyond a shadow of all reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
S.K.Sharma , J.
1. The sole appellant named above has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 4.2.2009 and 9.2.2009 respectively passed in Trial No. 01 of 2003 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. III, West Champaran, Betiah whereby he has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 20 and 23 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 15 years and fine of rupees one lac on each counts and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years on each 2 counts. However, it was ordered that the sentences shall run concurrently.
2. On the basis of self statement of Sub-Inspector of Police -cum- Officer Incharge of Sahodra Police Station dated 2.10.2002 a case vide Sahodra P.S. Case No. 49 of 2002 was registered against Mantu Mahto and Surendra Mahto with regard to an occurrence of 3.45 AM on 2.10.2002. The information was received by the informant at 3.00 AM on 2.10.2002 that Ganja was being kept by Mantu Mahto- appellant and Surendra Mahto. This secret information led the informant to proceed with the police personnel for conducting raid at the house of the appellant. Accordingly, on that date at 3.45 AM the raid was conducted at the house of Mintu Mahto in presence of the witnesses Yognedra Yadav (PW 4) and Baldeo Yadav (PW 3). On search, 10 packets Ganja kept in a Jute Bag was seized from a room situated on the western side, 10 packets kept in a bag from a room situated in the southern side and 15 packets of Ganja kept in a jute bag from the room situated in the eastern side of the house were seized. Seizure list (Ext. 1/2) was prepared on which two independent witnesses put their signatures (Ext. 1 and 1/1). One seized packet was weighed and it was found to be 25 Kilograms so it was calculated that total weight of 35 packets comes to 8 quintals and 77 Kilograms of Ganja and its price should be rupees eight lac and thirty thousand. Mintu Mahto was hiding himself in that room and he 3 was nabbed. No explanation regarding possession of Ganja was given. It was suspected that this illegal trade was being carried by which the Ganja imported from Nepal in bulk was being sold in different locations of India. The case was registered under Sections 21, 22, 23 and 24 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act against this appellant- Mintu Mahto, Surendra Mahto and two unknown.
3. On the basis of aforesaid fard-beyan (Ext. 2) formal FIR (Ext. 3) was drawn and the case was entrusted for investigation to Sub-Inspector of Police, Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh (not examined) and after investigation chargesheet was submitted against Mintu Mahto and Surndera Mahto. Accordingly, cognizance was taken under Sections 21, 22, 23 and 24 and charge under Sections 20 and 23 of the Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substance Act was explained to the accused persons. They pleaded their innocence and trial proceeded.
4. In course of trial the prosecution has examined altogether six witnesses. They are: Madan Kumar Yadav, constable (PW 1), Ram Ekbal Sharma, Hawildar (PW 2), Baldeo Yadav @ Laldeo Yadav (PW 3), Yogendra Yadav (PW 4), Jay Narayan Rao, Constable (PW 5) and Arun Rajak, informant (PW 6). Documentary evidences are: seizure list (Ext. 1), signatures of witnesses on the seizure list (Ext.1/1 & 1/2)), fard-beyan of informant (Ext.-2), formal FIR (Ext.-3) and Report R.F.S.L. No. 4 11/2003 of Director, Forensic Science Laboratory showing that the sent article was found to be Ganja (Ext.-4).
5. On behalf of defence Kapildev Mahto and Moti Ram Mahto were examined as DW 1 and DW 2 to say that the house of the accused was not searched.
6. The trial court after considering the facts and circumstances and after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge only against the appellant Mintu Mahto and another accused Surendra
