IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.
Raj Narayan Das S/o Late Uma Ram Das – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Assam – Respondent
Crl. Appeal No. 183 of 2011
Decided On : 05-12-2023
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Appeal - Section 22(b) - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed Section 22(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and the mandatory provisions of Section 52A and 57. The court highlighted the requirement of conscious possession for penal consequences and the need for compliance with the prescribed procedures under the NDPS Act, 1985.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 22(b) of the NDPS Act, 1985 for possession of contraband. The prosecution alleged that the appellant was caught delivering drugs and seized contraband from his possession. The appellant denied his involvement and claimed that the pharmacy did not belong to him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove conscious possession of the seized contraband by the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. It also noted the total non-compliance with the prescribed procedures under the NDPS Act, 1985. The court held that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed.
Issues: The issues revolved around the conscious possession of the seized contraband, compliance with the prescribed procedures under the NDPS Act, 1985, and the consideration of the appellant's defense under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the requirement of conscious possession for penal consequences under the NDPS Act, 1985 and the need for compliance with the prescribed procedures. It also highlighted the duty of the court to consider the defense of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Final Decision: The court set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant, concluding that the charge against the appellant could not be proved beyond all reasonable doubt, and he was entitled to the benefit of doubt.
JUDGMENT :
MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.
1. Heard Mr. N. Mahajan, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam.
2. This Appeal has been preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the appellant Sri Raj Narayan Das, impugning the judgment and order dated 14.10.2011, passed by the Court of the learned Additional learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati in Sessions Case No. 159(K)/2009, whereby the present appellant was convicted under Section 22(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of another three months.
3. The facts relevant for adjudication of this instant Criminal Appeal, in brief, are as follows:
(ii) On receipt of the said FIR, C.I.D. P.S. Case No. 08/2009 under Section 22(a) of the NDPS Act, 1985 read with Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 was registered and investigation was initiated. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was laid against the present appellant under Section 22(a) of the NDPS Act, 1985.
4. Though the appellant was arrested during the course of investigation, he was later on released on bail and he faced the trial remaining on bail. During trial, on 15.09.2009, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati after perusing the materials on record and after hearing both sides, framed charge under Section 22(b) of the NDPS Act, 1985 and against the present appellant and when the said charge was read over and explained to the present appellant he pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. During the course of the trial, five witnesses were examined by the prosecution side.
5. The appellant was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 during which he pleaded his innocence and denied the prosecution evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses against him.
6. However, after culmination of the trial, the learned Trial Court convicted the present appellant and sentenced him in the manner as already described in paragraph no. 2 hereinabove.
7. Before considering the rival submissions of the learned counsel for both sides, let me go through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which is available on record.
8. PW-1, Sri Dilip Khan has deposed that the appellant had a pharmacy, namely, Durga pharmacy at 4 No. Railway Gate, Maligaon and in the pharmacy of the appellant cough syrup, corex, phensydin etc. are sold. PW-1 has stated that about six months prior to his deposing before the Court he went to purchase one cough syrup from the pharmacy of the appellant and at that time people from CID came and seized certain medicines. He has also deposed that he went to purchase cough syrup, Nitrosan and Spasmo Proxyvon from the pharmacy and when the people from CID came, he paid Rs. 300/- to the owner of the pharmacy. He has also deposed that the people from CID seized 3 to
Conscious possession of narcotics is required for conviction under the NDPS Act; failure to comply with procedural safeguards can lead to acquittal.
Non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements under the NDPS Act, particularly Section 52A, undermines the prosecution's case and warrants acquittal.
A reverse burden of proof lies upon the accused, contrary to the normal rule of criminal jurisprudence for presumption of innocence unless proved guilty
The conviction was set aside due to non-compliance with mandatory procedures under the NDPS Act, specifically Section 52A regarding the presence of a Magistrate during sampling.
The court established that procedural lapses in the handling of seized narcotics do not necessarily invalidate a conviction if the evidence of possession is compelling and no prejudice to the accused....
Compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act is crucial for the admissibility of evidence; failure to adhere to its provisions can lead to acquittal.
Procedural lapses in evidence collection under the NDPS Act, particularly failure to comply with Section 52A, render prosecution's case insufficient for conviction.
Recovery of contraband – Penal provisions of NDPS Act, 1985 prescribes very harsh punishment for offender and it is incumbent for prosecution side that mandatory procedural requirement to be followed....
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.