Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SHAILENDRA SINGH, J.
Santosh Ray S/o Late Sheoji Ray – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 283 of 2017
Decided On : 11-12-2023
NARCOTICS - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Section 20b(ii)C - The court discussed the mandatory provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act regarding search, seizure, and sampling of narcotic materials. It highlighted the failure of the police to follow these provisions, including the lack of sealing of contraband and proper sampling procedures. The court emphasized that the prosecution did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of the charges under the N.D.P.S. Act, leading to the decision to overturn the conviction.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Santosh Ray, was convicted for possessing narcotic material (ganja) after a police chase resulted in an accident involving a jeep he was driving. The police recovered 52 packets of ganja from the vehicle, but the appellant claimed innocence and did not provide evidence in his defense.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to adhere to mandatory procedures for the search and seizure of narcotics, including the sealing of contraband and proper sampling. The evidence presented was insufficient to establish the appellant's knowledge of the contraband in the vehicle.
Issues: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of the charges under Section 20b(ii)C of the N.D.P.S. Act, considering the procedural lapses in the search and seizure process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution's failure to comply with mandatory provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act regarding search, seizure, and sampling undermined the integrity of the evidence against the appellant, leading to a lack of conviction.
Final Decision: The court set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 20b(ii)C of the N.D.P.S. Act, allowing the appeal and ordering the appellant's immediate release if not required in other matters.
JUDGMENT :
SHAILENDRA SINGH, J.
1. The instant appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction dated 02.11.2016 and order of sentence dated 10.11.2016 passed by learned Additional Session Judge-I, Siwan, in connection with G.R. No. 37 of 2013, Tr. No. 50 of 2016 arising out of Pachrukhi P.S. Case No. 04 of 2013, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 20b(ii)C of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short N.D.P.S. Act), whereby and whereunder the appellant namely, Santosh Ray has been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 20b(ii)C of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of rupees One lakh has also been imposed upon the appellant and in case of non-payment of fine, he has been directed to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for two years.
2. The substance of the prosecution’s case is as follows:
On 03.01.2013, the informant, then SHO of Pachrukhi P.S., was patrolling with other police officials and chowkidar and during that course, he got a secret information that narcotic material suspected to be ganja was being smuggled by a white colour jeep which was coming from Chhapra side and thereafter, he reached at Paroli turn with police party and when he saw the said vehicle coming speedily, he signalled the vehicle to stop but the vehicle was not stopped rather the same was driven in more speed by its driver and thereafter, in between Paroli turn and Gamhariya village, the jeep dashed against a tempo that resulted in injuries to some passengers riding in the tempo and both the jeep and tempo overturned at the side of road, after that, two persons got down from the jeep and started fleeing but one of them, was apprehended by the police party and the said person disclosed his name as Santosh Ray (appellant) but the second person managed to escape. The informant further revealed that the injured persons, who were riding in the tempo, were taken to Primary Health Centre, Pachrukhi and when the offending vehicle was searched then from a box, which was secretly made in the back portion of the jeep, 52 white colour polythene packets each containing one kg ganja, were recovered and the apprehended accused (appellant) revealed that he had brought the seized material from one namely, Saroj Singh who was living in a rented house in Chhapra. The informant further revealed that in the presence of two persons namely Dina Nath Mahto @ Bandhu Mahto and Salman Ahmad, the seizure memo of the seized contrabands and seized jeep was prepared upon which both the independent persons made their signatures and thereafter apprehended accused, seized contrabands and jeep were brought at the police station and the seized contrabands were deposited in the Malkhana of the police station. The informant recorded his statement as Ext. 1, on that basis, the formal FIR bearing Pachrukhi P.S. Case No. 04 of 2013 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 427 of the IPC and also under Section 20/22 of the N.D.P.S. Act which set the criminal law in motion. Thereafter, the investigation was started.
3. After completion of the investigation, the appellant was chargesheeted for the alleged offences of the FIR and the investigation was kept pending in respect of co-accused persons namely Kamlesh, Saroj Singh, Sahu and Prem Kumar Sah and after that, the court concerned took cognizance of the alleged offences.
4. The appellant stood charged for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 427 of the IPC and also stood charged for the offence under Section 20b(ii)C of the N.D.P.S. Act. As the appellant did not plead guilty hence he was put on trial.
5. During trial, the prosecution examined eight witnesses and in documentary evidence, proved the following documents and got them marked as Exhibits which are as under:
| Ext. 1 | Written application |
| Ext. 2 | Formal FIR |
| Ext. 3 | S |
AI
The prosecution must strictly adhere to the mandatory provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act regarding the search, seizure, and sampling of narcotic materials; failure to do so can result in the dismissal of....
Failures and inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, including unexplained delay in informing the police, contradictions in the evidence of prosecution's witnesses, and failure to produce the seiz....
The prosecution must strictly adhere to the procedural requirements of the N.D.P.S. Act, and failure to do so can result in the acquittal of the accused due to insufficient evidence.
The judgment established the significance of producing seized materials as evidence, proper sampling and handling of contraband, and compliance with N.D.P.S. Act provisions for maintaining the credib....
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.
Illegal trade and smuggling of Ganja – Failure on part of prosecution to produce seized articles as material exhibit at the trial in absence of any certification of its disposal, gives blow to prosec....
Non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act and lack of corroboration from witnesses can vitiate the conviction.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
