IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.
Narendrabhai Dhirajlal Kacha – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2328 of 2019 With CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE) NO. 1 of 2019 With R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2349 of 2019 With CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FIXING DATE OF EARLY HEARING) NO. 1 of 2023, CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (REGULAR BAIL) NO. 2 of 2022, R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2298 of 2019
Decided on : 08-09-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction under ndps act. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. evidence of search and seizure. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. arguments on behalf of the appellants. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. prosecution's burden to prove conspiracy. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 5. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 6. importance of corroborative evidence. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 7. final verdict and conclusion. (Para 27) |
JUDGMENT :
1. The appellants - accused have preferred these appeals under Section 374(2) of the CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE , 1973 against the judgment and order of conviction dated 07.10.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirzapur at Ahmedabad (hereinafter be referred to as “the Trial Court”) in NDPS Case Nos. 4 of 2016, 6 of 2016 and 2 of 2017, whereby present appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 25 -A and 29 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter be referred to as “the Act”) and directed them to undergo sentence of rigorous imprisonment of ten years for the said offences with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.
2. Present group of appeals is arising out of the common question of law and facts. In substance, learned advocates appearing for the respective parties have requested to deal with and decide the same conjointly and as such, considering the request and the joint submission, the Court has taken up the appeals for hearing by treating Criminal Appeal No.2328 of 2019 as a lead matter and for the sake of convenience, the facts are taken from the said appeal. So far as the lead matter, i.e. Criminal Appeal No.2328 of 2019, is concerned, same is arising from the following background of facts:-
2.1 On 14.04.2016 the first informant, Mr. V. R. Malhotra, Police Inspector, serving in the A.T.S., Gujarat State, Ahmedabad was orally instructed by Superintendent of Police (Operations), A.T.S. that Mr. B. C. Solanki, A.C.P., S.O.G., Ahmedabad City has received a secret information to the effect that the accused Narendra Dhirajlal Kacha in conspiracy and in connivance with accused Kishore Bhavsinh Rathod and Jay @ Jay Mukhi had procured an illegal consignment of Ephedrine from factory situated at Solapur, Maharashtra and had kept it in his possession in industrial shed of Jayesh Patel situated near the connecting road to Village Vahelal, Taluka Daskroi, District Ahmedabad. It was further alleged that all these accused are preparing to export the said Ephedrine to foreign country and the informant was further instructed to arrange a raid in pursuance of secret information. Accordingly, a team of ATS Officers was formed which included the first informant Mr. V. R. Malhotra, Mr. B. C. Solanki, A.C.P., S.O.G., ATS; Mr. R. R. Sarvaiya, Police Inspector, Crime Branch and other staff members including a photographer. It was alleged that two independent witnesses for being panch were also arranged by P.S.I. Mr. R. K. Solanki; the panchas were briefed about the raid and once they gave their consent for accompanying them and after taking necessary articles, the entire team proceeded at the place mentioned in the secret information. Before proceeding, an entry was made in the Station Diary as Entry No. 04/2016, dated 14.04.2016, at 14.50 hours. The team raided the said shed at around 15.45 hours where one person sitting on the chair namely Narendra Dhirajlal Kacha and two persons were working in the shed who stated to be doing labour work under Narendra Kacha and, thereafter, the members of the ATS team entered into the shed and gave their identity to those persons. Thereafter, Mr. V. R. Malhotra, being in-charge of the raiding party told the accused - Narendrabhai Kacha that he was having an information that a big consignment of controlled substance Ephedrine kept under this shed and for that reason a search of the p
Aher Raja Khima v. State of Saurashtra
Ashok alias Dangra Jaiswal v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Allarakha K. Mansuri V/s. State of Gujarat
Aloke Nath Dutta & Ors. V/s. State of West Bengal
Amar Singh V/s. Balwinder Singh
Arif Khan @ Agha Khan Vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in (2018) 18 SCC 380;
Anter Singh V/s. State of Rajasthan
Bhagwan Singh V/s. The State of Haryana
Balu Sonba Shinde V/s. State of Maharashtra
Bhaskar Ramappa Madar and others v. State of Karnataka (2009) 11 SCC 690
C. Muniappan and others Vs. State of Tamil Nanu reported in (2010) 9 SCC 567;
Chandra Kanth Lakshmi V/s. State of Maharashtra
Karnail Singh Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2009) 8 SCC 539;
Karamjit Singh vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Mukesh Singh Vs. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi) reported in (2020) 10 SCC 120
Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab (2018) 17 SCC 627
Mohinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2018) 18 SCC 540
Naresh Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in (2017) 15 SCC 684
Ouseph Vs. State of Kerala reported in (2004) 10 SCC 647
Pulukuri Kotayya V/s. King-Emperor
Paras Yadav V/s. State of Bihar
Rajiv Kumar Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2017) 8 SCC 791;
Radha Mohan Singh @ Lal Saheb & Ors. V/s. State of U.P.
Rabindra Kumar Dey V/s. State of Orissa
Ram Bihari Yadav V/s. State of Bihar
Rajivkumar Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2017) 8 SCC 791
State of Rajasthan Vs. Jag Raj Singh reported in (2016) 11 SCC 687
State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu reported in AIR 2005 SC 3820
State of Rajasthan Vs. Ram Chandra reported in AIR 2005 SC 2221
State of Rajasthan Vs. Parmanand and another reported in (2014) 5 SCC 345
Subramaniam Vs. A. Raja reported in (2012) 9 SCC 257
Surindar kumar Khanna Vs. Intelligence Officer reported in (2018) 8 SCC 271
Sarad Sardul Singh Caveeshar Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (1964) 2 SCR 378
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Sajivan and Others (2010) 1 SCC 529
State of Rajasthan Vs. Jag Raj Singh reported in (2016) 11 SCC 687;
State of Rajasthan Vs. Parmanand reported in (2014) 5 SCC 345;
State of Rajasthan Vs. Gurmail Singh reported in (2005) 3 SCC 59;
State of NCT of Delhi Vs. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru reported in (2005) 11 SCC 600;
Subramanian Swamy Vs. A. Raja reported in (2012) 9 SCC 257;
State of Karnataka V/s. K. Yarappa Reddy
State of U.P. V/s. Ramesh Prasad Misra & Anr.
Syad Akbar V/s. State of Karnataka
Sarvesh Naraian Shukla v. Daroga Singh & Ors.
State of Punjab Vs. State of Punjab Vs. Baljinder Singh and another reported in (2019) 10 SCC 473
S K Sakkar alias Mannan vs. State of West Bengal reported in (2021) 4 SCC 483
Shri Rai has relied upon Jitendra and Another v. State of M.P.
The State of Maharashtra V/s. Damu Gopinath Shinde & Ors.
Union of India Vs. Mohanlal and another reported in (2016) 3 SCC 379
Vijay Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2013) 14 SCC 527
Chandrappa and others v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415
Damoder Sarup Seth Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1965 SC 682;
Gangadhar alias Gangaram Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2020) 9 SCC 202
Girja Prasad (dead) by LRs. vs. State of M.P.
Gurjant Singh @ Janta Vs. State of Punjab
Gorakh Nath Prasad Vs. State of Bihar
Issak Nabab Shah vs. State of Maharashtra
Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2011) 3 SCC 521
Jugendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2012) 6 SCC 297
Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari V/s. State of Madhya Pradesh
Kallu Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 2022 SC 50
Strict compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 42(1) and 42(2) of the NDPS Act is required, and the prosecution must establish the accused's conscious possession of the contraband.
The court affirmed that possession of contraband substances establishes statutory presumptions requiring defendants to prove lack of conscious possession under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Sub....
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....
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.