IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH AT KOHIMA BENCH
DEVASHIS BARUAH, ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, JJ.
Wetso-U Ritse W/o Weshe Ritse – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Nagaland – Respondent
Crl. A(J) No. 5 of 2020
Decided On : 16-03-2022
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 374(2) – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 313, 35, 54, 20(b)(ii)(C) – Any person convicted on a trial held by a High Court in its extraordinary original criminal jurisdiction may appeal to Supreme Court – This is an Appeal filed under provisions of Section of Criminal Procedure Code, challenging Judgment passed by Special Judge, Nagaland in Sessions (Special) Case arising out of GR of P.S. Case whereby appellant was convicted under Section of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, and sentenced for a term of years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of and in default of payment of fine he was further directed to undergo years Rigorous Imprisonment – Held, Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant submits that in facts of instant case and taking into consideration that appellant was sole bread-earner of family, sentence should be reduced – Taking into account facts of instant case as well as provisions of Section of Act we are of view that ends of justice would be met sentence is reduced to years with a fine of and in default of payment of fine, appellant would further undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment – Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
1. Heard Ms. Khriekethono, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. K.K. Wotsa, learned P.P. appearing on behalf of the State.
2. This is an Appeal filed under the provisions of Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (In Short, The Code), challenging the Judgment dated 18.06.2020, passed by the Special Judge, Phek, Nagaland in Sessions (Special) Case No. 05/19 arising out of GR No. 36/18 of Pfutsero P.S. Case No. 15/18, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (In short the Act) and sentenced for a term of 14 (fourteen) years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2 Lakhs/- and in default of payment of the fine he was further directed to undergo two years Rigorous Imprisonment.
3. The question that arises for consideration is whether the Court below was justified in applying Section 35 of the said Act to the facts of the case; whether the appellant herein, upon application of Section 35 was able to discharge the reverse burden imposed upon him under the said provision.
4. The facts of the instant case are that on 27.11.2018 at around 23:00 hrs, police personnel of Pfutsero Police Station including Constable, Mr. Zolo Thele (PW-1), Inspector Mr. Ginlunglal Tungnung (PW-2) and Assistant Sub-Inspector Mr. Selu Koza (PW-3), under the command of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Ms. Aotula, were on the Motor Vehicle Check Post (MVCP), duty at PWD road Junction, Pfutsero when they intercepted a vehicle being Tata Mobile bearing Registration No. NL-07A-0408, coming from the town area. The vehicle was driven by the appellant (Mr. Weshe Ritse). He was alone in the vehicle. During the search, the vehicle was found loaded with Ganja. The appellant was, therefore, taken into custody by the Police personnel and brought to the Police Station, Pfutsero, along with the vehicle. At the Police Station, Mr. Zolo Thele lodged a suo moto First Information Report (Exhibit P-1) against the appellant which was registered by Mr. Ginlunglal Tungnung (PW-2), who in turn authorized Mr. Selo Koza (PW-3) to investigate the incident. Mr. Selo Koza, arrested Mr. Weshe Ritse, the appellant, and seized the contraband upon weighing as well as the vehicle; wherein, the total quantity of the contraband was found to be 435 (Four Hundred and Thirty Five) Kilograms. The Investigating Officer prepared samples of the contraband in the presence of the Magistrate and the samples of the same were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory in Dimapur for an expert opinion. In the course of investigation, the appellant disclosed that he was a member of the Naga Socialist Council of Nagalim (Isaac Muivah) [In short, NSCN (IM)] and on receiving information about an illegal transportation of Ganja at Kapamodzu Zhavame Camp, the appellant was asked by his superior to seize the contraband and the vehicle. On the basis of such directions issued by his superior, the appellant rushed to the sport and seized the vehicle along with the contraband after chasing it. The appellant further, during his interrogation disclosed that the contraband belonged to one Mr. Solomon Ladu, and while he took charge of the seized vehicle and proceeding he was caught by the Police personnel at the Check Post.
5. On the basis of the disclosure being made by the appellant during his interrogation, the Investigating Officer arrested one Mr. Solomon, who allegedly stated that he had arranged the contraband on request of one Mrs. Dilhou Krome for Rs. 1,50,000/- (One Lakh Fifth Thousand Only) from her friend one Rhunu alias Rhinu residing at Phaibung Village, Manipur. The Investigating Officer also arrested Mrs. Dilhou Krome based on the Call Detail Report (CDC) between the said Mrs. Dilhou Krome and Mr. Solomon. On the basis of the same, the Investigating Officer, after completing his investigation, filed a Charge-Sheet (Exhibit P-3) against the three accused persons namely- the appellant (Mr
The prosecution must prove the seized contraband and its connection to the accused beyond a reasonable doubt to secure a conviction under the NDPS Act.
The prosecution must establish conscious possession beyond reasonable doubt in NDPS cases.
Possession of narcotics requires no personal search compliance under Section 50 when found during public checks; evidence established conscious possession leads to conviction under the NDPS Act.
The court emphasized that compliance of Sec. 50 of the NDPS Act was not necessary as there was no personal search of the accused, and the accused's conscious possession of Ganja led to the presumptio....
Point of law: While upholding the constitutional validity of sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act, the Apex Court has, however, reiterated that more serious the offence, the stricter would be the degre....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of 'conscious possession' and the significance of animus or intent in establishing possession of contraband under the NDPS Act.
The court affirmed the conviction under the NDPS Act, emphasizing that procedural lapses do not invalidate the trial when no prejudice is demonstrated, and the prosecution established possession and ....
Knowledge of illegal activities is a prerequisite for liability under Section 25 of the NDPS Act, and the prosecution bears the burden of proof to establish such knowledge.
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.