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

2019 Supreme(Chh) 211

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant, J.
Mohammad Zahir - Appellant
Vs.
State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Saraipali - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1412 of 2017, 212 of 2018, 1943 of 2017
Decided On : 03-04-2019

Advocates Appeared:
Punit Ruparel, Adv., Nirupama Bajpai, Adv., Shivali Dubey, Adv., Mahesh Mishra, Adv.

Headnote:

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 50 and 20(b)(ii)(c) – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 313 - Abjured their guilt and sought trial - Pleaded innocence and false implication - Conviction and order - Appellant in all three appeals were found traveling in said car who introduced themselves. They also made statement that they are bringing ganja from Band which was purchased from and was being transported for Executive Magistrate was summoned on the spot with a request to remain present during search procedure - Notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act was served upon appellants informing them about their rights of being searched in presence of any gazetted Officer or Executive Magistrate - Appellants consented for their search by police officer present on spot - Police party gave their own search to the appellants in which nothing objectionable was found - Held, Appellants that seized contraband was not produced before the trial Court during the trial and judgments relied upon in support of this submission i.e. judgments delivered in matter of is concerned it would not be in interest of justice to acquit the appellants solely on ground of non-production of seized contraband before Court below during trial particularly when there are other strong circumstances clearly indicating involvement of appellants in commission of crime in question - Moreover appellants have failed to show any prejudice being caused to them due to non-production of seized contraband before Court during trial - It is well-settled that mere non-production of seized property does not by itself vitiate conviction of accused unless prejudice is shown to have been caused to accused - Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant, J.

This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.8.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge N.D.P.S., Saraipali, District-Mahasamund in Special Criminal Case No.06/2016 convicting the accused/appellants under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act') and sentencing each of them to undergo RI for 10 years with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- plus default stipulation.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is this that on 2.10.2015 SHO K.B. Dwivedi PW-7 along with his team was checking the vehicles coming from the side of Odisha. One car Bearing Registration No. HR-26-T-4215 did not stop on signaling, which was chased and stopped. The driver of the car fled towards the jungle. The appellant in all three appeals were found traveling in the said car, who introduced themselves. They also made statement that they are bringing ganja from Banda Chowk, Sambalpur, which was purchased from Ratnakar Behra and was being transported for Kallu Thakur @ Jagdish. PW-9 Executive Magistrate Shri Atul Vishwakarma was summoned on the spot with a request to remain present during search procedure. Notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act was served upon the appellants informing them about their rights of being searched in presence of any gazetted Officer or Executive Magistrate. The appellants consented for their search by the police officer present on the spot. The police party gave their own search to the appellants in which nothing objectionable was found. Thereafter the dickey of the car was searched and 74 packets containing substance like ganja were recovered. On weightment, the same were found to be 74 kgs. Contents of the packets were taken out and after preparing homogeneous mixture of ganja available in those packets, two samples each of 100 gm were prepared and sealed in presence of witnesses. Remaining ganja of 73.800 kilogram was again packed and sealed in the packets. Seizure of vehicle, samples, papers of vehicle, packets of ganja and other articles were made vide Ex. P-17, 18 & 19 respectively. Subsequent to that, the offence under Section 20 (c), 27(a), 28 and 29 of NDPS Act was registered against the appellants vide FIR (Ex.P-31). The appellants were arrested on the spot. Seized articles were handed over to Maalkhana Moharrir for keeping the same in the safe custody i.e. in the Malkhana of the police-station. Samples of seized articles ganja were sent for chemical examination to the FSL and according to report of FSL (ExP-34), the samples were found to be ganja. The investigation was completed and charge-sheet was filed.

3. The appellants were charged with the offence under Section 20(B)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act. They abjured their guilt and sought trial. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 14 witnesses. Statements of appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of CrPC, in which they denied all the incriminating evidence available against them and pleaded innocence and false implication. No witness was examined in defence.

4. After completion of trial, the trial court by the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner as mentioned herein-above.

5. It is submitted by counsel for appellants in all the three cases the conviction of the appellants is bad in law, being not supported by the evidence of cogent and clinching nature. Statement of Investigating Officer K.B. Dwivedi PW-7 was not reliable & trustworthy and further it was not supported by the evidence of independent witnesses Shripati Nayak PW-5 and Sarthi Sao PW-6. Search was not made in accordance with the procedure provided under the NDPS Act. The timings mentioned in the search and seizure memos do not match with each other, which creates doubt in the entire prosecution story. Though the samples were handed over to Rohit Kumar PW-12 for keeping it in safe custody, but he, instead of depositi


















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
whatsapp-icon Back to top