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) 1482

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, SOURENDRA PANDEY
Toofani Ram, Son of Vishwanath Ram – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.406 of 2023



Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Ms. Preety Chaudhary, Advocate Mr. Kumar Harshvardhan, Advocate
Mr. Rajnikant, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Bipin Kumar, Addl.PP

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.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Section 20(b)(ii)(c) - Appeal against conviction - Conviction set aside due to failure to follow established procedures during search, seizure, and sampling - Significant procedural lapses noted, including non-examination of independent witnesses and delays in evidence handling. (Paras 3, 10, 30)

(B) Burden of Proof - The court articulated the onus on the prosecution to demonstrate that any procedural non-compliance does not undermine its case, referencing established legal principles in related cases. (Paras 30, 31)

(C) The trial court found the weight of evidence insufficient to uphold conviction; primary evidence was not duly presented, leading to reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused. (Paras 32, 33)

Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted under the NDPS Act for possessing and transporting ganja, seized from a vehicle during a police operation. (Paras 2, 3)

Findings of Court:
The prosecution's failure to provide key evidence, including the proper handling of seized materials, led to insufficient proof of the charges. (Para 34)

Issues: Whether the established procedures for search and seizure as mandated by law were adhered to, and if any procedural lapses affected the prosecution's case. (Paras 4, 10)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the lapse in procedure resulted in a substantial failure of proof, mandating the acquittal of the accused based on reasonable doubt. (Para 32)

Result: Conviction and sentence of the appellants set aside; they were acquitted and ordered released. (Paras 33, 36)

Table of Content
1. details of prosecution case and evidence presentation. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. trial court's findings on prosecution evidence. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. arguments presented by appellants' counsel. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
4. state's defense of the trial court's judgment. (Para 21 , 22)
5. court's analysis of procedural compliance in evidence handling. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
6. final decision on the inability to sustain conviction. (Para 32 , 33)
7. outcome of the appeal and order for acquittal. (Para 34 , 35 , 36)

JUDGMENT :

RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This appeal is arising out of judgment of conviction dated 18.03.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’) and the order of sentence dated 22.03.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned order’) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, NDPS Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial court’) in Trial No. 30 of 2020 arising out of Kuchaikote P.S. Case No. 489 of 2020.

3. By the impugned judgment, the learned trial court has been pleased to convict the appellants for the offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘NDPS Act’) and ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twelve years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,20,000/-. In case of default of payment of fine, he has to further undergo one year imprisonment.

Prosecution Case

4. The prosecution case is based on the written application of the informant (PW-1). In his written application (Exhibit ‘2’), the informant has alleged that he got a secret information on 18.12.2020 at 10:10 AM that a big consignment of illicit ganja is likely to come from Gopalganj side. In this regard, he recorded his Sanha bearing No. 494 of 2020 dated 18.12.2020 and gave information to the Senior Police Officers and the nearest Magistrate, who is the Anchaladhikari, Kuchaikote. The Anchalaadhikari was asked to come to the police station. On the direction of the Officer Incharge of the Police Station, the informant (PW-1) along with Sub-Inspector Shankar Paswan and the force of the Reserve Bal, Hawaldar Ramkumar Singh, Sipahi Deepak Kumar, Sipahi Lalu Kumar constituted a raiding team and they along with Anchaladhikari reached Balthari Check Post at NH-28. It is further alleged that after reaching Balthari Check Post, checking of the vehicles coming from Gopalganj started and in course of conducting the check at the Check Post, he came across a silver coloured Honda City Car coming from Gopalganj side bearing registration number UP-16-N-1820. The said car was stopped, the driver and another person who was in the car tried to flee away but they were caught and on asking, they disclosed their names as (1) Toofani Ram and (2) Ramkripal Yadav. On seeing the police action, people from the neighbouring place had assembled and he took two independent witnesses, namely, (1) Godan Shah and (2) Sandeep Basfor who agreed to become seizure list witnesses. Upon search of the vehicle, from the dickey of the car, the informant found 16 packets in plastic polythene, there were brown coloured substances in the packets which smell like ganja. It is alleged that the accused persons said that the substance is ganja which they were concealing in the dickey of the car and it belongs to Toofani Ram. Both the apprehended accused were searched and from both of them one mobile each was recovered.

The informant has further alleged that at the place of seizure itself, the weighing machine was called for from the police station and the 16 seized packets were weighed, they were of total 1.30 quintal. At the place of occurrence itself, informant had prepared two samples in two boxes (dibbas) of 25 grams each which were sealed also. All the above articles were seized and seizure list was prepared on which both the independent witn


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