SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Pat) 392

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA 
JITENDRA KUMAR, J.
Ali Haque S/o Late Md. Musa - Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 1414 of 2021
Decided On : 17-01-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mohammed Abu Haidar, Md. Abu Shajar
For the Respondent: Zeyaul Hoda

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.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 20(b)(ii)(c), 22(c), 23(c), 35 and 54 - Conviction for possession of contraband - Appellant found guilty and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment and fines amounting to Rs.3,00,000/- - Prosecution failed to comply with mandatory procedures for search and seizure as outlined in Sections 42 and 50 - Contradictions in evidence regarding the seizure and handling of the contraband - Prosecution did not prove foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt, thus the presumption under Sections 35 and 54 could not be raised. (Paras 1, 9, 25, 60-62)

(B) Criminal procedure in NDPS cases - Importance of adherence to statutory provisions to ensure fairness - Any breach affecting the trial can lead to acquittal. (Paras 32, 40, 44)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was arrested for possession of 2.4 kg Charas based on police intelligence. The arrest and search did not follow mandated provisions for search procedures, resulting in significant evidence discrepancies.

Findings of Court:
The prosecution's failure to provide sufficient evidence and its non-compliance with legal standards led to the conclusion that the appellant could not be held guilty.

Issues: The key questions addressed included the legality of the search and seizure procedures, the adequacy of evidence presented, and the prosecution's ability to meet its burden of proof.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that adherence to the NDPS Act's procedural safeguards is crucial for ensuring a fair trial, and since foundational facts were not established, the presumption of guilt could not be applied.

Result: Appeal allowed; appellant acquitted of all charges.

Table of Content
1. conviction details of appellant. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. appellant's legal arguments against conviction. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
3. arguments presented regarding prosecution's failures. (Para 20)
4. judicial interpretation of the ndps act. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
5. evidence shortcomings in the prosecution case. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59)
6. court finds prosecution case fails. (Para 60)
7. judgment and order conclusion. (Para 61 , 62 , 63 , 64)

JUDGMENT :

JITENDRA KUMAR, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.12.2020, passed by Ld. District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, NDPS Act, West Champaran at Bettiah in Sessions Trial No. 18 of 2017/C.I.S. No. 23 of 2019, arising out of Kangali P.S. Case No. 08 of 2017, whereby the sole appellant has been found guilty of offence punishable under Sections 20 (b) (ii)(c), 22(c) and 23(c) of NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo R.1. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- for each offences separately, total amounting to Rs.3,00,000/- and in case of default to pay the fine, to undergo additional S.I. for nine months for each default.

Prosecution Case

2. The prosecution case as emerging from the written report of the informant L. Hemo Singh addressed to Officer-in- Charge, Kangali, West Champaran, Bihar is that at 12 O'clock on 24.01.2017 he got information from Deputy Commandment that one person of height of 5'4" aged about 60 years, wearing white Kurta and Pajama is about to pass border pillar No. 403/12 (49). After getting information, he constituted one team and proceeded at 12:20 O'clock to the said border pillar which was 500 meters away from railway track. By 14 O'clock the person of the said description came and when he was crossing the railway track, he caught him. He asked him whether he wanted to be searched before a Gazetted Officer. But the person confessed to his guilt stating that he has five packets Charas-one packet in his pocket and four packets in his bag. All packets were covered by cello tape. On the spot, he got the seized article weighed by digital weighing machine. He also got it tested by NDPS detection test kit and came to know that the article was Charas weighing 2.4 k.g. On enquiry, he stated his name as Ali Haque S/o late Md. Moosa, R/o Ward No.04 Kalibag, Bettiah, West Champaran. Aforesaid occurrence was informed to Executive Commandment Sri Pravin Kumar on phone, whereupon he directed him to register a case under NDPS Act and prepare a seizure list. As directed, Ali Haque was arrested at 14:15 O'clock.

Factual Background

3. On the basis of the written report of the informant, FIR bearing Kangali P.S. Case No. 08 of 2017 was registered on 24.01.2017 at 18:35 P.M. against the sole accused/appellant Ali Haque for the offence punishable under Sections 8 /20 (b)(ii) B of N.D.P.S. Act.

4. After registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced and charge-sheet bearing No. 08 of 2017 dated 30.03.2017 was filed against the Appellant, Ali Haque under Sections 8 /20 (b)(ii) B of N.D.P.S. Act. Subsequently, cognizance was taken and charges were framed against the Appellant/accused under Sections 20 (b)(ii)(c), 22(c) and 23(c) of NDPS Act. The charges were read over and explained to him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the trial commenced.

5. During the trial, the following five witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution:

(1) P.W.-1-L. Hemo Singh (Informant)

(2) P.W.-2-Santanu Roy

(3) P.W.-3-Anuj Kumar

(4) P.W.-4-S. Gilbert Singh

(5) P.W.-5-Shamim Akhtar Hawari, I.O.

(6) P.W.-6-Sudhir Kumar

6. The prosecution brought on record the following documentary evidence also:

(i) Ext. 1-Confessional statement of the accused;

(ii) Ext. 2-Production-cum-seizure l



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top