Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MITALI THAKURIA, J.
Shri. Samanungba Ao, Son of Shri. Repabibo – Appellant
Versus
The State of Nagaland – Respondent
Crl.Rev.P. No. 15 of 2019
Decided on : 16-08-2024
Plea - Conviction - NDPS Act - Sections 21(a), 27(b), 42(2), 50, 57 - The Court emphasized the necessity of ensuring that a guilty plea is voluntary, clear, and informed, and that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act were not complied with, leading to the quashing of the conviction.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was convicted under Section 21(a) of the NDPS Act after pleading guilty to possession of contraband. He claimed he was misadvised by his counsel and was unaware of the legal implications of his plea.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the conviction was based solely on the guilty plea without proper judicial scrutiny of its voluntariness and without compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act.
Issues: Whether the conviction based solely on the guilty plea was valid given the lack of evidence and the failure to ensure the plea was voluntary and informed.
Ratio Decidendi: A conviction based on a guilty plea must be supported by a clear understanding of the charges and the consequences, and the Court must ensure compliance with mandatory legal provisions.
Result: The conviction was set aside and the case was remanded for a fresh trial.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. Sentiyanger, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Kevi Angami, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Nagaland.
2. This is an application under Section 397 read with 401/482 of Cr.P.C, 1973 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order dated 29.01.2007 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Mokokchung, Nagaland in G.R. Case No. 80/2005, by which, the appellant was convicted under Section 21(a) NDPS Act, 1985.
3. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that on 13.11.2005, the present petitioner was arrested with an allegation that 3(three) grams of brown sugar was recovered from his possession and accordingly, an FIR was also lodged by one Sub-Inspector Longkok Jamir, who was in-charge of Tsuthapila check gate. Though the petitioner was initially allowed to go on bail but, as per the instructions of Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Mokokchung vide Office Communication No. MDP/CB-SDPO/05-06/1833 dated 14.11.2005 asking him to withdraw the bail bond and to immediately arrest the present petitioner and to produce him before the Court within 24 hours from the date of arrest. The articles were accordingly seized and were sent to Forensic Science & Laboratory, Assam, Kahilipara, Guwahati for examination. The report from FSL gave positive test of heroin, and after completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the present petitioner under Section 27(b) of NDPS Act.
4. Thereafter, at the time of framing of charge, the learned counsel for the petitioner advised him to plead guilty for early disposal of the case and also stated that no harm shall cause to him even if he is discharging as Armed Branch Constable, Nagaland. Accordingly, the petitioner without having much knowledge about the law and technicalities, obeyed the advice of his engaged counsel and accordingly, pleaded guilty before this Court. Consequently, on his own plea of guilty, the petitioner was convicted by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Mokokchung, Nagaland vide its impugned order dated 29.01.2007 and he was convicted under Section 21(a) NDPS Act by converting Section 27(b) NDPS Act, under which he was charge-sheeted and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 8,000/- (Rupees Eight thousand) in default R.I for 4(four) months.
5. Based on the impugned order dated 29.01.2007, the petitioner was terminated from his service as Armed Branch Constable, Nagaland vide Order No. MDP/Ro-8-07-08/148, dated 23.04.2007 by the Superintendent of Police, Mokokchung, by virtue of statutory powers conferred under Nagaland Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1967 Rule 9(x) dismissed the present petitioner from service with immediate effect.
6. On being aggrieved by the termination order from service, the petitioner moved a writ petition (WP(C) No. 118(K)/2011) which was disposed vided order dated 20.03.2014, directing the petitioner to file an appeal before the concerned authority within a period of 30(thirty) days from the date of order as per the Nagaland Service Discipline and Appeal Rules seeking revocation of his dismissal order with a petition seeking condonation of delay in approaching the said forum.
7. The petitioner accordingly on 11.04.2014 filed an appeal before the Director General of Police, Nagaland, Kohima against the dismissal order dated 23.04.2007, passed by the Superintendent of Police, Mokokchung, with a prayer to condone the delay in filing the appeal. However, vide Order No. PHQ(B-X)HC/9/2011/154 dated 06.06.2014, the petitioner’s appeal was dismissed by the Director General of Police, Nagaland, Kohima.
8. Aggrieved to the said order passed by the Director General of Police, Nagaland, the petitioner again approached this Court by filing another writ petition (WP(C) No. 164(K)/2014. However, the same was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 12.08.2016.
9. Thereafter, on being aggrieved to the impugned order dated 29.01.2007, passe
A guilty plea must be voluntary and informed, with compliance to mandatory provisions of law, or it cannot sustain a conviction.
A plea of guilty cannot be the sole basis for conviction without ensuring it is voluntary and understood by the accused, particularly when the accused lacks legal representation.
Acquittal of the accused under the NDPS Act is upheld as the trial court's judgment was not flawed and adhered to evidentiary standards.
Compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act is required only when contraband is seized from a person, not from belongings.
Strict compliance with mandatory provisions can lead to conviction under narcotic laws; however, age-based probation is essential for rehabilitating younger offenders.
A guilty plea must be clear and constitute an admission of all facts constituting the offence; failure to ensure this can lead to miscarriage of justice.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
