IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Birendra Kumar, J.
Sanjay Kamkar @ Sanjay Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1479 of 2019
Decided On : 09-02-2021
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and Section 27 (A) read with Section 42 – Seizure of Ganja – Conviction and sentence – Admission of accused during course of his interrogation cannot be made admissible in evidence – There is no other evidence on identification of place of search – There is no evidence on record that requirement of Section 42 of Act was complied with – Besides non-support of prosecution case by prosecution witnesses, non-examination of Anchaladhikari who was accompanying police team as Magistrate seriously tells upon prosecution case as foundation of case has not been proved and substantiated beyond reasonable doubt – Prosecution has failed to establish that place of seizure was of appellant, especially when defence witnesses stated that appellant was arrested from his shop at Brahmpur and not from place as alleged by prosecution – Informant police officer is investigating officer of case – Chances of tacit bias in getting desired result of his own complaint cannot be ruled out – If complainant is himself investigating officer,accused as well as prosecution are deprived of their valuable right of contradicting and corroborating with previous statement of informant recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. or of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.as enjoined in Sections 145 and 157 of Evidence Act – Chances of tampering of seized material by investigating officer cannot be ruled out – There was no fair investigation of case as informant was himself an investigating officer – Impugned judgment and order set aside. (Paras 4, 9, 11, 13 to 20)
(2009) 8 SCC 539 ; 1996 CRI. L. J. 2001; (2005) 5 SCC 272; (2005) 5 SCC258 – Relied.
JUDGMENT
Birendra Kumar, J. - The sole appellant Sanjay Kamkar @ Sanjay Kumar faced trial along with co-convict Ganesh Prasad in N.D.P.S. Case No. 04 of 2014 arising out of Brahmpur P.S. Case No. 76 of 2014. The appellant above named was found guilty for offences under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) and under Section 27 (A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The learned trial Judge awarded 10 years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 1 lac under both the heads aforesaid and in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment of three months was awarded. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.02.2019 is under challenge in this appeal.
2. The prosecution case as disclosed in self statement of Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Singh (PW-11), the Inspector of Police (Brahmpur Police Station) is that on 27.03.2014 at about 09:15 A.M., confidential information was received that the appellant, resident of village - Nimej under the same police station is engaged in purchase and sale of ganja (opium) and is hiding ganja in his house. The informant lodged station diary entry no. 688 of 2014 and as per direction of his senior Police Officer took the services of the Circle Officer, Brahampur in the capacity of a Magistrate and proceeded along with other police personnel for village - Nimej. Local chaukidar Rajendra Paswan (PW-4) also accompanied with the informant and police party. They reached at the house of the appellant at 10:15 A.M. The house of the appellant was seized by the police personnel. The villagers assembled there and in presence of two witnesses Babloo Ojha (PW-1) and Ashok Yadav (PW-2), the appellant who was found there disclosed his name. Two others found there were Shatrughan Kumar and co-convict Ganesh Prasad. The appellant was informed that the police has to search the house as the police has information that ganja is kept there. The appellant was also informed about his right to be searched in presence of the Magistrate as contemplated under Section 50 of the Act. Thereafter, in presence of Mr. Shushil Kumar Upadhyay, the Circle Officer and the two independent witnesses, the person of the three accused named above was searched. From possession of the appellant, a mobile phone was recovered, from possession of co-convict Ganesh Prasad, a mobile phone and 100 grams of ganja was recovered and from possession of co-accused Shatrughan (who was found juvenile and his matter was sent to the Juvenile Justice Board), a mobile and 100 grams of ganja was recovered. Besides aforesaid, from the house of the appellant, 29.500 Kg of ganja was recovered. Samples from all the packets of recovery was taken out and sealed in three envelops. Thereafter, the seized narcotics were also sealed. The witnesses above named and the available Magistrate signed on the seized articles and sample packets. Since the appellant had no valid license for keeping ganja in commercial quantity, the appellant and others were booked in the case.
3. After investigation, the police submitted chargesheet and accordingly the appellant faced trial along with co-convict Ganesh Prasad for the offences stated above and were found guilty.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the seizure list witnesses and independent witnesses i.e. PW-1 Babloo Ojha, PW-2 Ashok Yadav and PW-3 Basant Jaiswal have not supported the prosecution case. The prosecution has failed to establish that the place of recovery belongs to the appellant and in absence of any evidence that the appellant is owner of the place of recovery, it cannot be alleged that the recovered narcotic was of the appellant. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Alam Khan V. Narcotics Control Bureau and Another, (1996) CriLJ 2001. Learned counsel for the appellant next contends that there is complete non-compliance of the requirement of Section 42(1) and 42(2) of the N.D.P.S. Act. Nothing has be
(1) Admission of accused during course of his interrogation cannot be made admissible in evidence. (2) Fair trial is a constitutional guarantee to an accused under Article 21. Fair trial includes fai....
Point of Law : NDPS Act – Conviction set aside - Complete lack of evidence as to whether the seized substances were sealed at all muchless in presence of responsible person.
Non-compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act undermines the validity of search and seizure, impacting the prosecution's case significantly.
The admissibility of police witnesses' evidence and the requirement of substantial compliance with statutory provisions are crucial legal principles established in this judgment.
Prosecution's failure to comply with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act led to the acquittal of the appellants due to insufficient evidence.
Non-compliance with statutory requirements for search and seizure under the NDPS Act renders the prosecution's case doubtful, leading to the reversal of conviction.
The court emphasized the necessity for strict adherence to procedural safeguards in drug-related cases, ruling that non-compliance rendered the prosecution's case unsustainable.
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.