Back
2020 Supreme(Chh) 373
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Arvind Singh Chandel, J.
Raja Sonkar - Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 168 of 2016
Decided On : 08-06-2020
B.P. Singh, Advocate, Anand Verma, Advocate
Strict compliance with the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, particularly Section 50 and 55, is mandatory. Non-compliance with these provisions can lead to the acquittal of the accused.
Headnote:
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Non-compliance with Section 50 and 55 - [Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act] - [Section 50, Section 55] - The court discussed the non-compliance with Section 50 and 55 of the Act, highlighting the mandatory nature of these provisions and the strict compliance required. The court emphasized the need for the search to be conducted by a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer as per Section 50, and the requirement for the seal of the Station House Officer as per Section 55. The judgment emphasized the importance of strict compliance with these provisions and found that the prosecution had not complied with them, leading to the acquittal of the Appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution case involved the Appellant being caught with brown sugar and subsequently convicted under Section 21(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The Appellant denied the guilt and pleaded innocence, and the trial court convicted and sentenced the Appellant. The appeal was made on the grounds of lack of reliable evidence and non-compliance with legal provisions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was complete non-compliance with the provisions contained in Section 50 and 55 of the Act. It highlighted material contradictions in the statements of witnesses and the possibility of tampering with the evidence. The court concluded that the conviction of the Appellant was not sustainable and acquitted the Appellant of the charge.
Issues: Non-compliance with Section 50 and 55 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, material contradictions in witness statements, and the possibility of tampering with evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the Act, material contradictions in witness statements, and the possibility of tampering with evidence, leading to the acquittal of the Appellant.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence was set aside, and the Appellant was acquitted of the charge framed against him. The Appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt and was to be set at liberty if not required in any other case.
JUDGMENT
Arvind Singh Chandel, J. - The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 23.9.2015 passed by the Special Judge under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (henceforth ''the Act''), Durg in N.D.P.S. Case No.7 of 2015, whereby the Appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:
| Conviction | Sentence |
| Under Section 21(b) of the Act | Rigorous Imprisonment for 8 years and fine of Rs.25,000/- with default stipulation |
2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 1.4.2015 at 14:45 hours, Manish Shende (PW9), Sub-Inspector, posted in Police Station Durg received a telephonic information from an informant that in front of Vardhman Bhawan situated in Shivpara one person, namely, Raja Sonkar (the Appellant) had in his possession brown sugar in different pouches and was trying to sell them. Sub-Inspector Manish Shende (PW9) recorded this information in Rojnamcha Sanha (Ex.P28) and in compliance of the provision contained in Section 42(2) of the Act, forwarded the said information to higher officer City Superintendent of Police, Durg vide Ex.P20. Meanwhile, he called witnesses and in their presence he prepared Mukhbir Suchna Panchnama (Ex.P4). Thereafter, he proceeded towards the spot along with other staff and the witnesses. On the spot, he surrounded the Appellant and caught him. For personal search of the Appellant, he gave him notice (Ex.P5) under Section 50 of the Act. Over Ex.P5 itself, the Appellant consented to be searched by Sub-Inspector Manish Shende (PW9) himself. On being searched, it was found that the Appellant had kept total 88 pouches of brown sugar in the pocket of his pant and he had also kept one work paper of golden colour. Sub-Inspector Manish Shende (PW9) prepared search panchnama (Ex.P8). He also prepared a panchnama (Ex.P9) against the recovery of 88 pouches of brown sugar. Identification of the recovered substance was done and a panchnama thereof (Ex.P10) was prepared. The recovered brown sugar was mixed and a panchnama thereof (Ex.P12) was prepared. Weight of the recovered brown sugar was done and weight panchnama (Ex.P13) was prepared. On being weighed, total quantity of the recovered brown sugar was found to be 11.520 Gms. The whole quantity of the recovered brown sugar was kept in an envelope and the empty 88 pouches were kept in other envelope and both the envelopes were sealed and a seal of P.S. Durg C.G. was affixed over both the envelopes. Both the envelopes were seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P14). Specimen seal panchnama (Ex.P15) was prepared. The Appellant was arrested on the spot itself vide Ex.P17. Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P36) was recorded. After return to the police station, First Information Report (Ex.P37) was registered. Sub-Inspector Manish Shende (PW9) handed over both the seized envelopes to Malkhana-in-Charge Shankar Prajapati (PW5), who received their deposit in the Malkhana and made an entry thereof in the Malkhana register (Ex.P21). Both the seized envelopes were delivered in the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) by Constable Musafir Singh Yadav (PW7) on 4.4.2015 and he obtained acknowledgment thereof (Ex.P23) from the FSL. FSL report is Ex.P40, which is positive. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the Appellant. Charge was framed against him.
3. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses. In examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Appellant denied the guilt and pleaded innocence. No witness has been examined in defence.
4. On completion of the trial, vide the impugned judgment, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the Appellant as mentioned in first paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that without there being any clinching
