IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.
Gauram Mandal, son of Rameshwar Mandal and ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Bodhghat District - Respondent
CRA No. 937 of 2001
Decided On : 13-04-2023
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Section 50 and 20(b)(1) - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 313 - Search and seizer of Contraband -Appeal against conviction - Whether version of independent witnesses who turned hostile is unbelievable and whether there is a possibility that they have become turncoats - Held, Now this Court has to examine the effect of non-support of prosecution case by independent witnesses - From evidence brought on record it is clear that witnesses and have not supported case of prosecution but has narrated that contraband to Forensic Science Laboratory - Witnesses were cross-examined by accused he has reiterated the fact that he has given notice to accused as per compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act and also denied that since simple was not prepared entire contraband was given - Appeal Allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.09.2001, passed by the Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), Bastar at Jagdalpur in Special Criminal Case No. 33/2001 whereby the accused/appellants have been convicted under Section 20(b)(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short “NDPS Act') and appellant No. 1 has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, with default stipulation, whereas appellant No. 2 has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 4,000/- with default stipulation.
2. It is pertinent to mention here that appellant No. 1 – Gautam Mandal had died during pendency of the appeal, therefore, the appeal so far as it relates to appellant No. 1 stands abated in pursuance of the order passed by this Court on 01.09.2021. 3. As per prosecution case, on 28.05.2001 Mr. R. S. Netam Sub Inspector, Bodhghat Police Bus stand Chouki received secret information from informant that a bus bearing registration No. M.P.24/9088 was coming from Kota to Durg, in which two persons are sitting and carrying contraband (ganja). The said information was reduced to writing in Rojnamchasanha vide Ex.P/25 and forwarded to the C. S. P. Jagdalpur, vide Ex.P-23.
4. The police party along with witnesses went to the spot, apprehended the accused persons, gave them notices (Ex.P-1 and Ex. P/2) under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and made them aware of their legal rights, on which they consented to be searched by R.S. Netam, Sub-Inspector vide Ex.P-3. Personal search of the police party and the witnesses were also made by the appellants and nothing was found vide Ex.P/4. On search of the bag which was in possession of the appellant No. 1 and one carton which was in possession of appellant No. 2 carrying Ganja like substance were recovered and on being examined by smelling and burning, it was found to be Ganja vide Ex. P-7. On weighment being done of the contraband, it was found to be 2.5kg from the possession of appellant No. 1-Gautam Mandal and 5kg from the possession of appellant No. 2 - B. Shekhar. Taul Panchanama Ex. P/8 and P/9 were prepared. Two samples, each of 24 gms, were drawn from the said contraband and seizure memo (Exs.P- 10 to 13) were prepared, the samples were duly sealed and kept in Malkhana and specimen of seal was affixed on the seizure memo vide Ex. P/14 and Ex. P/15. Mr. Netam, had asked both the accused persons regarding licence and gave them notice vide Exs. P/27 and P/28 but they both could not have the licence thereafter both the accused persons were arrested and spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-29. Intimation of the entire proceedings was forwarded to the C.S.P. Jagdalpur. After reaching police station, FIR (Ex.31) was registered against the appellants under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act. The remaining contraband was deposited in Malkhana vide Ex. P/33, samples were sent to FSL for chemical examination, which was received by FSL on 28.08.2001 with intact seal and report of FSL is Ex.P-40, which confirms the seized contraband to the Ganja.
5. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused/appellants under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act. The Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act) framed charge under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act against them.
6. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused/appellants, the prosecution examined as many as 6 witnesses namely- Rampher Yadav (PW01), Seetaram (PW02), Jeevan (PW03), Guddu (PW04), S. R. Netam (PW05) and B. P. Joshi (PW06) and exhibited the documents Panchnama from Goutam Mandal (Ex. P/1), Panchnama from B. Shekhar (Ex.P/2), Consent for search by both the accused person (Ex.P/3), search of the Police Party (Ex. P/4) search of the accused Goutam Mandal (Ex. P/5), search of the accused B. Shekhar (Ex. P/6), Identification panchnama (Ex.P/7) Taul Panchanama (Exs. P/8& P/9), Seizure panchanama (Ex. P/ 10), propert
Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri v. State of Gujarat
Boota Singh & others v. State of Haryana
Kallu Khan v. State of Rajasthan
State of Haryana v. Vikram Singh
Non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act vitiates the conviction, especially where the prosecution relies solely on police testimony without corroboration from independent witness....
Narcotics, Intoxicate and Liquor - Search and seizure – Investigation by Police officer - There is no legal proposition that evidence of police officials unless supported by independent evidence is u....
The admissibility of police witnesses' evidence and the requirement of substantial compliance with statutory provisions are crucial legal principles established in this judgment.
Non-compliance with mandatory procedural safeguards under Section 50 of the NDPS Act vitiates the prosecution case, entitling the accused to the benefit of doubt.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 50 and Section 54 of the NDPS Act in the context of proving the possession of contraband substance an....
Prosecution has failed to prove the said mandatory compliance as required in law, i.e., the mandatory provision of Section 50 of NDPS Act, 1985. Therefore, appellants who are accused are entitled to ....
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.