IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SHAILENDRA SINGH, J.
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.2983 of 2022
(8.2.2024)
Lakshaman Sharma ... Appellant
vs.
Union of India ... Respondents
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Sections 20(b)(ii)(c) and 29 read with Section 67 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 25 – Seizure of Charas – Conviction and sentence – In the light of facts revealed by appellant and co-accused in their statements, NCB officials did not succeed to get disclosure of any relevant fact or evidence to show appellant's involvement in alleged crime of smuggling of narcotic material – Statement made by accused and recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in trial of offence under NDPS Act – Recovery was made by SSB officials but appellant was not apprehended with co-accused and he was apprehended more than three years after arresting of co-accused with alleged contraband – NCB officials who investigated present matter did not succeed to gather any further evidence on the basis of said statements showing appellant's involvement in alleged crime of smuggling – Conviction of appellant for offences charged is completely illegal and not sustainable in eye of law – Impugned judgment and order impugned convicting and sentencing appellant for offences charged hereby set aside – Appeal allowed. (Paras 12 to 18)
Shailendra Singh, J.—Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned APP appearing for UOI through NCB.
2. The instant appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction dated 06.06.2022 and order of sentence dated 16.06.2022 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, West Champaran, Bettiah, in connection with N.D.P.S. Case No. 63/2021 arising out of N.C.B. Case No. 23/2018 (Special Case No. 18/2018), whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act (hereinafter referred to as NDPS Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for one year has been awarded upon him and he has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the offence punishable under Section 29 of NDPS Act with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for one year has been awarded upon him and both the sentences of imprisonment have been directed to run concurrently by the convicting trial court.
3. The substance of prosecution’s allegation is that on 02.05.2018, Mr. Sunil Dubey, Assitant Director of Narcotics Control Bureau (in short NCB), Patna got the information that one person had been apprehended with 4.500 kg of charas by SSB officials, then a team consisting of the officials of NCB was constituted with intelligence officials A. K. Prasad, Ashok Kumar Rai and one constable Manoj Kumar Yadav who were part of the team and on the same day at about 5 P.M. the team with relevant materials such as drug detection kit, etc. started their journey and reached at Enerva where the 47th SSB Battalion was deputed and thereafter, the NCB team met Sr. Raj Kumar Kumawat, Assistant Commandant of SSB and recovered the prohibited seized material and the assistant commandant gave all the information of search and seizure of the seized contraband through his letter dated 03.05.2018 which had been sent to NCB. As per his letter, the office of SSB got the information that one person was coming from Nepal country and would enter into the territory of India with narcotic material charas and then a Quick Response Team (QRT) was constituted by SSB officials which was led by Sr. Raj Kumar Kumawat and the said team saw two persons coming from Nepal side near border pillar no. 413 then the SSB officials asked them to stop but they started fleeing and then one of them was apprehended on chase, who disclosed his name as Sanjay Mahto Kewat and the other person managed to escape and thereafter, a notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act was given to Sanjay Mahto Kewat and on that, he gave his consent to be searched before the SSB officials and thereafter, in the presence of two independent persons namely Prem Kumar Yadav and Sushil Yadav a bag, he was carrying at the time of arrest, was searched from which 4.500 kg charas like material was recovered and thereafter, the seized contraband along with the apprehended accused Sanjay Mahto Kewat was handed over to NCB officials. It was further alleged that nine (9) packets wrapped with brown colour tape kept in a plastic bag were recovered from the possession of the apprehended accused and thereafter, some small quantity was taken as a sample from each packet that was examined by the help of detection kit and then the seized material was confirmed as charas and the total weight of the seized contraband was measured as 4.500 kg. After that, the packets and samples were kept in different packets which were sealed in the presence of two independent witnesses Prem Kumar Yadav and Sushil Yadav and all these proceedings were completed on 03.05.2018 at the spot. It was further revealed that the statements of the independent witnesses along with th
Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Ram Singh vs. Central Bureau of Narcotics
Ram Singh vs. Central Bureau of Narcotics
Confessional statements made to officers under the NDPS Act are inadmissible, and mere dock identification is insufficient for conviction.
Presumption of culpable mental state - Initial burden is cast on prosecution to establish essential factors on which its case is premised - Standard of proof required for accused to prove his innocen....
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....
Confessional Statement in front of police officer - Admissibility of - Officers who are invested with powers under S. 53 of NDPS Act are “police officers” within meaning of S. 25 of Evidence Act, as ....
The prosecution must comply with mandatory procedural requirements in drug cases, failing which foundational facts required to establish guilt cannot be met, leading to acquittal.
The admissibility of evidence, including confessional statements, and the application of Section 37 of the NDPS Act for bail, were central legal points established in the judgment.
Seizure of Heroin – Process of drawing of samples has to be in presence and under supervision of Magistrate and entire exercise has to be certified by him to be correct.
The main legal point established is the inadmissibility of retracted statements under Section 67 of NDPS Act and the need for corroboration of evidence in drug-related cases.
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.