Back
2020 Supreme(Gau) 568
GAUHATI HIGH COURT (AIZAWL BENCH)
Michael Zothankhuma, Nelson Sailo, JJ.
Lenpu - Appellant
Versus
State Of Mizoram - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 2018
Decided On : 28-08-2020
A.R. Malhotra, Advocate, H. Lalremruata, Advocate, Vanlalhriati, Advocate, C. Zoramchhana, Advocate
Proper compliance with legal procedures, admissibility of evidence, and clear and unambiguous pleas of guilt are essential for a fair trial and conviction.
Headnote:
ND&PS Act - Conviction under Section 22(c) - [Methamphetamine Possession] - [Section 22(c) ND&PS Act, 1985] - The court discussed the admissibility of evidence, compliance with Section 50 of the ND&PS Act, contradiction in witness statements, and the plea of guilt. The court found discrepancies in the evidence and remanded the case for a fresh trial.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 22(c) ND&PS Act for possessing Methamphetamine. The appellant challenged the conviction citing procedural irregularities, contradictions in witness statements, and the plea of guilt.
Finding of the Court:
The court found discrepancies in the evidence, including the admissibility of documents, compliance with Section 50 of the ND&PS Act, and contradiction in witness statements. The court also noted inconsistencies in the plea of guilt. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned Judgment & Order and remanded the case for a fresh trial.
Issues: Admissibility of evidence, compliance with Section 50 of the ND&PS Act, contradiction in witness statements, and the plea of guilt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for proper compliance with legal procedures, admissibility of evidence, and the importance of clear and unambiguous pleas of guilt. The court also highlighted the requirement for sound judicial principles in exercising discretion to convict based on a plea of guilt.
Final Decision: The impugned Judgment & Order was set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh trial.
JUDGMENT
Michael Zothankhuma, J. - Heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. C. Zoramchhana, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
2. This is an appeal filed against the Judgment & Order dated 06.12.2017 passed by the Special Court, ND&PS Act, Champhai in Sessions Case No. 83/2017 (Criminal Trial No. 886/2017) arising out of CPI Excise Case No. 10/2017, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 22(c) ND&PS Act, 1985 and sentenced to undergo 15 years Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, in default Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 (one) year.
3. The prosecution story of the case in brief is that on 14.01.2017 at around 10:30 PM, Champhai Excise & Narcotics team led by Mr. J. Laltlanmawia, SubInspector recovered and seized 2200 tablets of Methamphetamine, weighing about 222.2 grams from the possession of the appellant in the outskirts of Champhai town. The accused was travelling in one Maxi Cab Sumo bearing registration No. MZ-01-K-1057 from Zokhawthar village to Champhai town and the seized articles were recovered, when the Excise & Narcotics team performed random checking of vehicles and their passengers plying on the main road between Zokhawthar village and Champhai.
4. After the seizure and arrest of the appellant, the appellant was produced before the Magistrate 1st Class, Champhai. The inventory of the seized articles was prepared by the Officer-in-charge of the Excise & Narcotics Station, Champhai which was produced before the Magistrate 1st Class along with the seized articles. Weighment was done and samples were taken from the seized articles and sealed. Samples were then sent to the FSL, Aizawl for examination.
5. After the investigation was completed and the FSL report was received, a final report/complaint was submitted by the Excise, as the I.O. had found a prima facie case under Section 22(c) ND&PS Act, 1985 against the appellant.
6. Charge was framed under Section 22 ND&PS Act against the accused, to which the appellant pleaded guilty. Notwithstanding the above, trial proceedings were started and 7 (seven) prosecution witnesses were examined. Thereafter, the statement of the appellant was taken under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 28.11.2017. The learned Trial Court thereafter passed the impugned Judgment & Order dated 06.12.2017, by which the appellant was convicted under Section 22(c) of the ND&PS Act and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 15 years with a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, i.d. Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 (one) year.
7. The appellant being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed upon him, has filed the present appeal.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that while the evidence of the prosecution witnesses shows that the prosecution witness No. 5 i.e., the Seizing Officer, had exhibited (1) the seizure and arrest memo as Exhibit P-1, (2) Report of seizure and arrest as Exhibit P-2 and (3) grounds of belief under Section 42 of the ND&PS Act, 1985 as Exhibit P-3; PW-7, who is the case I.O. had exhibited (1) the complaint sheet as Exhibit P-4, (2) statement of accused as Exhibit P-5 and (3) detailed particulars of accused as Exhibit P-6. No other prosecution witnesses had exhibited any other document during recording of evidence by the Trial Court. However, the learned Trial Court has in the "Table case index", which forms a part of the impugned Judgment & Order dated 14.12.2017 showed the documents exhibited during the trial proceedings to be Exhibit P-1 to P-12. The appellant''s counsel submits that though the "Table case index" does not indicate that the certificate of "search of a person under Section 50 of the ND&PS Act, 1985" had been exhibited, the records show that the said certificate had been exhibited as Exhibit P-13. The appellant''s counsel submits that the learned Trial Court could not have relied upon Exhibit P-7 to 13 to come to any finding against the appellant during the trial, as the same were never exhibi
