IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
A. M. Badar, Harish Kumar, JJ.
Md. Mojamil Son of Noor Mohammad - Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.489, 277, 471 of 2018
Decided On : 02-08-2023
NDPS Act - Conviction under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 23(c) - [20(b)(ii)(C), 23(c)] - The court found the prosecution had produced sufficient oral and documentary evidence that the accused persons committed the offence charged under the NDPS Act, 1985, in respect of recovery of specified quantity of charas from their respective possession. However, the court found serious infirmities in the prosecution evidence, including non-compliance with the procedure for drawing up the sample of the narcotic, lack of compliance with the prescribed procedure under the NDPS Act, 1985 at all the stages, and the case being based on the confessional statement of the appellants under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, 1985, which is not admissible. The court held that the appellants are entitled to be acquitted and set aside the judgment of conviction and consequent order of sentence.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were charged under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 23(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985 for recovery of charas from their respective possession. The prosecution case was based on the recovery of charas from the appellants' possession during a raid at the Railway Station Chowk. The seized charas was sealed in the presence of witnesses and the appellants were brought to the police station. The Investigating Officer submitted the final report/charge-sheet against the appellants after keeping further investigation pending against other accused persons.
Finding of the Court:
The court found serious infirmities in the prosecution evidence, including non-compliance with the procedure for drawing up the sample of the narcotic, lack of compliance with the prescribed procedure under the NDPS Act, 1985 at all the stages, and the case being based on the confessional statement of the appellants under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, 1985, which is not admissible. The court held that the appellants are entitled to be acquitted and set aside the judgment of conviction and consequent order of sentence.
Issues: Non-compliance with the procedure for drawing up the sample of the narcotic, lack of compliance with the prescribed procedure under the NDPS Act, 1985 at all the stages, and the case being based on the confessional statement of the appellants under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, 1985, which is not admissible.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found serious infirmities in the prosecution evidence, including non-compliance with the procedure for drawing up the sample of the narcotic, lack of compliance with the prescribed procedure under the NDPS Act, 1985 at all the stages, and the case being based on the confessional statement of the appellants under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, 1985, which is not admissible. The court held that the appellants are entitled to be acquitted and set aside the judgment of conviction and consequent order of sentence.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the appellants and set aside the judgment of conviction and consequent order of sentence.
JUDGMENT :
All the three appeals have been preferred by the respective appellants against the judgment of conviction dated 20.01.2018 and the consequent order of sentence dated 29.01.2018, passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, East Champaran, Motihari in N.D.P.S. Case No. 07 of 2014 and, as such, with consent of the parties, the same are being heard together and disposed of by this common order.
2. The appellants Md. Mojamil (in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 489 of 2018) and Noor Alam (in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 471 of 2018) stood charged separately for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 23(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred as “NDPS Act, 1985”) for recovery of 5 Kg. and 4 ½ Kg. charas from their respective possession. The appellant Jabiullah (in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 277 of 2018) stood charged under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) and 23(b) of the NDPS Act for recovery of 500 gm. charas from his conscious possession.
3. During trial, the aforenoted respective charges stand proved and the appellant Md. Mojamil (in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 489 of 2018) and Noor Alam (in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 471 of 2018) have been found guilty for the offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, 1985 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of twelve years with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-(one lac) and in default of payment of fine to further suffer an additional period of imprisonment for a term of six months whereas the appellant Jabiullah (in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 277 of 2018) has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of five years with a fine of Rs. 50,000/-(fifty thousand) and in default of payment of fine to further suffer an additional period of imprisonment for a term of three months.
4. Shorn off unnecessary details, the prosecution case based upon the written report of the informant Jitendra Deo Dipak (P.W.4) is that on 07.01.2014, while he was posted as Sub Inspector, In-charge of Naka No. 3, Motihari, he got an information from the S.H.O. Motihari Town P.S. that some persons are moving at the Railway Station Chowk with stolen articles, whereupon he rushed there and conducted a raid along with other police personnel. On noticing them, the three suspects tried to flee away but were promptly nabbed by them, in the meantime, Police Inspector-cum-SHO Motihari Town also arrived there. On being interrogated, the apprehended accused disclosed their names as Noor Alam, Md. Mojamil and Jabiullah. All residents of Masahi P.S. Chhauradano, East Champaran, Motihari. In presence of two independent witnesses, namely, Mukesh Patel and Vicky Patel, a search was made and from possession of Noor Alam, suspicious materials contained in nine plastic bags were recovered. Further from possession of Jabiullah, one packet and likewise from possession of Md. Mojamil, ten packets of suspicious materials were recovered. The apprehended appellants disclosed that all the plastic packets are containing charas which was purchased from Nepal and the same are being taken to Ratlam (Rajasthan) for sale.
5. The information of the aforenoted incident was given to the A.S.P. Motihari. It has also been disclosed by the accused/appellants that there was one another person with them whose name was Baccha Ji. Thereafter, the informant (PW 4) after making a consultation with the concerned department, prepared the seizure list and obtained the signature of the independent witnesses. The copy of the seizure list had been handed over to the respective appellants. The recovered charas was sealed in the presence of the witnesses and the appellants were brought to the police station.
6. On the basis of the aforesaid written report filed by the informant (P.W.4), Motihari Town P.S. Case No. 7 of 2014 was registered on 07.01.2014 for the offences punishable under Section 20/22 of the NDPS Act, 1985.
7. The Investigating Officer of the case took up the invest
Jagat Prasad v. State of Bihar and Another
Mohinder Kumar v. State, Panji, Goa
State of Kerala & Ors. v. Kurian Abraham (P) Ltd. & Anr.
State of Punjab vs. Baldev Singh
Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu
Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan
Non-compliance with the procedure for drawing up the sample of the narcotic, lack of compliance with the prescribed procedure under the NDPS Act, 1985 at all the stages, and the case being based on t....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for compliance with procedural safeguards and fair procedure in the investigation and trial of cases under the NDPS Act.
When directions are issued by an authority having the legal sanction granted therefor, it becomes obligatory on the part of the subordinate authorities to comply therewith.
It was also held that they were not inexorable rules as there could be circumstances in which it may not be possible for the seizing officer to prepare the mahazar at the spot, if it is a chance reco....
According to Section 52-A(4) of the Act, samples drawn and certified by the Magistrate in compliance with sub-section (2) and (3) of Section 52-A above constitute primary evidence for the purpose of ....
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.