IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J.
Narendra Bhusan Dubey
Vs.
State of M.P. (Now C.G.)
Criminal Appeal No. 1634 of 1995
Decided On: 20.09.2010
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act - Violation of Provisions - Section 20 (b) (i) - Section 50, Section 42 (2), Section 55 & 57 - The court found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 20 (b) (i) of the N.D.P.S. Act. The defense argued non-compliance of mandatory requirements of Section 50, violation of Section 42 (2), and serious violation of Sections 55 & 57. The court held that the provisions of Section 50 were complied with and were not attracted as the contraband was seized from a bag on a cycle and not from the person of the accused. The court also found that the provisions of Section 42 (2) were not attracted as the information received did not pertain to a specific building, conveyance, or enclosed place. The court further held that there was substantial compliance with the provisions of Section 57. However, the court found serious discrepancies in the safe custody of the seized articles and samples, leading to doubts about the prosecution's case. The court concluded that the statutory mandate as contained in Section 55 was violated, and the prosecution case became extremely doubtful. The court acquitted the appellant of the charges.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that the accused was found in possession of contraband ganja, which was seized from a bag kept in a cycle. The accused denied the charges.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 20 (b) (i) of the N.D.P.S. Act. However, the court acquitted the appellant of the charges due to serious discrepancies in the safe custody of the seized articles and samples, leading to doubts about the prosecution's case.
Issues: Non-compliance of mandatory requirements of Section 50, violation of Section 42 (2), and serious violation of Sections 55 & 57.
Ratio Decidendi: The provisions of Section 50 were complied with and were not attracted as the contraband was seized from a bag on a cycle and not from the person of the accused. The provisions of Section 42 (2) were not attracted as the information received did not pertain to a specific building, conveyance, or enclosed place. There was substantial compliance with the provisions of Section 57. However, the statutory mandate as contained in Section 55 was violated, and the prosecution case became extremely doubtful.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the appellant of the charges.
Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J.
1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20 November, 1995 passed by learned Special Judge being the Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Special Case No. 186/1994, by which the Appellant has been found guilty for commission of offence under Section 20 (b) (i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the N.D.P.S. Act") and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine additional R.I. for 6 months.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 11.10.1994, an information was received by Inspector R.K. Rai regarding arrival of contraband ganja in village Sambalpuri and on receipt of such information, head constable Lallan Singh and constable -Kumar were sent for enquiry. The said information was recorded in Rojnamcha Sanha at Sr. No. 307. Thereafter, on 12.10.1994, Head Constable Lallan Singh telephonically informed to the Inspector R.K.Rai in the police station that ganja is in transit and likely to arrive, whereafter the Inspector, Investigating Officer in the present case proceeded for the scene of occurrence and information was recorded in Rojanamcha Sanha at Sr. No. 323 on 12.10.1994 and arrived at Sambalpuri - Pand Road. Further case of the prosecution is that about 12:45 p.m. the accused/Appellant was seen coming on a cycle, who was intercepted and the accused was informed that he has to be searched and was also informed that he may get the search conducted either through the police inspector or by a gazetted officer or Magistrate, whereupon, the Appellant gave his consent vide Ex. P-7. Thereafter, search was carried out and 2 packets containing 4 kg. ganja found inside a bag kept in the cycle were seized vide seizure memo of Annexure P-2 in the presence of seizure witnesses Ravi Shankar (P.W.2) and Shivkumar Tiwari (P. W.3) and for the purposes of drawing samples, 50 gm. ganja was taken out from each of the 2 packets and sealed. Dehati nalishi was recorded at the spot immediately after seizure vide Ex. P-l A. The Appellant was arrested vide arrest memo (Ex. P-l5), Seized ganja, cycle, dehati nalishi and the Appellant were taken to Police Station - Hirri by Head Constable Lallan Singh and after arrival, FIR was registered. Seized articles i.e. two packets of seized ganja along with 2 samples of 50 gm each were handed over to H.C.M. Aitwa Kujur for safe custody in malkhana vide memo (Ex. P-2). The information regarding seizure and arrest was forwarded to the S.D.O. (P), Kota vide Ex. P-14 on 12.10.1994. The samples of ganja were sent for chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory (F.S.L.) along with memo of Superintendent of Police vide Ex. P-8 which was received in FSL and an acknowledgment of receipt was issued vide Ex. P-9. The F.S.L. report (Ex.P-11) was received with covering memo Ex. P-10. The FSL report disclosed a positive result that the samples drawn were ganja.
3. After completing usual investigation, a charge sheet was filed in the Court. Charges were framed against the Appellant for commission of offense under Section 20 (b) (i) of the ND.P.S. Act. The Appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded innocence.
4. Prosecution, in order to prove its case examined as many as 4 witnesses namely B. L. Pandey (P.W.1), Ravi Shankar (P.W.2), Shiv Kumar Tiwari (P.W.3) and R. K. Rai (P.W.4). A solitary witness of defence Dashrath (D.W.I) was examined by the Appellant. The learned trial Court recorded the accused statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and asked him regarding evidence and circumstances appearing against him, which were denied by the Appellant. Vide impugned judgment and order of sentence, the learned Court below found the Appellant guilty of commission of offence under Section 20 (b) (i) of the N.D.P.S. Act and has sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years with fine of Rs. 2,000/- with usual default clause.
Balbir Singh v. State of Panjab (1994) 3 SCC 299
State of Panjab v. Baldev Singh AIR 1999 SC 2378
Kalema Tumba v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2000 Cr.L.R. SC 38 : (1999) 8 SCC 257
Sarjudas and Anr. v. State of Gujarat 2000 Cr.L.R.509 : 1999 (8) SCC 508
Kanhailalal v. State of M.P. 2001 2 EFR 10 SC : (2000) 10 SCC 380
Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri v. State of Gujarat AIR 2000 SC 821
Narmada Prasad v. State of M.P. 2001 CGLJ 306
Pothireddi Sivaprasada Rao v. State of A.P. 2001 (2) Crimes 359
Jagdish v. State of M.P. (2003) 9 SCC 159
P.P. Fathima v. State of Kerala (2003) 8 SCC 726
Noor Aga v. State of Punjab and Anr. AIR 2008 SCW 5964
State of Rajasthan v. Daulat Ram AIR 1980 SC 1314 : (1980) 3SCC 303
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.