IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ASHUTOSH KUMAR and HARISH KUMAR, JJ.
(17.5.2023)
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.193, 223 of 2017
Umashankar Yadav (in 193)
Manoranjan Kumar (in 223) : Appellants
Vs.
State of Bihar : Respondent
(in both)
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Sections 20(b) (ii)(c), 23(c) and 25, 35 & 54 – Prosession of Narcotics substance – the appellants were found at the premises of the accused persons, from where 511 kgs of ganja was recovered – only when possession is established, can the Court presume that the accused had the culpable mental state and that he had committed the offence – thus, possession for convicting an accused means physical possession along with the animus to exercise control over such articles – the animus and the mental intent are the primary and significant elements to show and establish possession – in the present case, no evidence found that the consignment of narcotics was brought in the house by the appellants or that the appellants had any idea about the storage of the narcotics in the house of the other accused persons or that they had any control over the recovered substance – conviction and sentences of the appellants is absolutely against the evidence on record – appellant acquitted of the charges and set at liberty. (Paras 31 to 33)
(2015) 6 SCC 222, (2008) 16 SCC 417, (2011) 11 SCC 653, (2010) 9 SCC 608, (2022) 7 SCC 419 & (2004) 13 SCC 608. – Referred.
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.:–Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 193 of 2017 and Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 223 of 2017 have been taken up together and are being disposed off by this common judgment.
2. Mr. Gouranga Chatterjee and Md. Najmul Hoda, the learned Advocates, have appeared for the appellants respectively in both the appeals. The State is represented by Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, the learned APP.
3. Both the appeals are directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 23.12.2016 and 24.12.2016, respectively, passed in G.R. No. 3431/13 (Tr. No. 6/17-9-2016) arising out of Mojahidpur (Babarganj) P.S. Case No. 149/13, whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offences under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 23(c) and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short the Act) and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years, to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for 20 months each for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act and rigorous imprisonment for 20 years, to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer simple imprisonment for 20 months each for the offence under Section 23(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act. No sentence has been imposed under Section 25 of the N.D.P.S. Act as sufficient punishment has already been awarded under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 23(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985.
4. Both the sentences have been ordered to be run concurrently.
5. One Parshuram Singh (P.W. 7), who at the relevant time was the S.H.O., Babarganj O.P., in the District of Bhagalpur, had lodged the self-statement on 03.10.2013 at about 8.25 A.M. that he had received a secret information in the previous night at about 7.15 P.M. that one Nandlal Sah, who claims himself to be a dealer of rice and carries on his business in Aliganj Gangti Mohalla, has been using his premises for storing and selling Ganja. P.W. 7 also received an information, in the same context, that narcotics is also being stored in the godown of one Mahesh Sah and that there are chances of a heavy consignment of Ganja being brought in the house of one Nandlal Sah. On such secret information, P.W. 7 claims to have informed the superior police officers and on their direction, a team was constituted for raiding the premises of Nandlal Sah, Lakhanlal Sah and Mahesh Sah. With the raiding team, the house of Nandlal Sah and Lakhanlal Sah, both brothers, who resided in the same house in two different floors, was raided. Simultaneously, a raid was conducted in the godown of Mahesh Sah. In the house of Nandlal Sah, his wife/Dolly Devi was available. The police party got themselves searched in presence of two independent persons, namely, Ramjiwan Sah and Sumit Kumar, when nothing incriminating was found on their person. Thereafter, necessary information was given to Dolly Devi and one Purnima Devi, the wife of coaccused/ Lakhanlal Sah that the police party had arrived at their house on the tip-off that the premises are being used for storing narcotics.
6. In presence of the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur, a raid was conducted. Before that, the persons present in the house were given the information that they could have themselves searched before the nearest Magistrate, if they so desired, to which they denied.
7. During the course of search of the house of Nandlal Sah and Lakhanlal Sah, from a room, in the eastern side of the house, nine packets containing narcotics were found. One digital weighing machine in operative condition was also found from that room. All the packets were weighed and the gross weight of all the nine packets was found to be 93.525 kgs. The contents of the packets appeared to be Ganja. At that place only, 25 gms. were taken out from each of the nine packets and those packets were sealed. Indian and Nepali currency notes were also found in one of the almirahs of that room. On account of such recovery, it w
The prosecution must establish conscious possession beyond reasonable doubt in NDPS cases.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of 'conscious possession' and the significance of animus or intent in establishing possession of contraband under the NDPS Act.
Point of law: While upholding the constitutional validity of sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act, the Apex Court has, however, reiterated that more serious the offence, the stricter would be the degre....
Possession of narcotics requires no personal search compliance under Section 50 when found during public checks; evidence established conscious possession leads to conviction under the NDPS Act.
The court affirmed the conviction under the NDPS Act, emphasizing that procedural lapses do not invalidate the trial when no prejudice is demonstrated, and the prosecution established possession and ....
The satisfaction of twin requirements under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of NDPS Act is essential for releasing a person accused of an offence involving commercial quantity, even after providing an opportuni....
Knowledge of illegal activities is a prerequisite for liability under Section 25 of the NDPS Act, and the prosecution bears the burden of proof to establish such knowledge.
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.