SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(Raj) 221

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
Prashant Kumar Agarwal, J.
Ram Swaroop and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 581 & 415 of 2011
Decided On : 30-01-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Dheeraj Singhal, Sameer Sharma
For the Respondent: Sudesh Kumar Saini

Important Point—Proceedings do not stand vitiated merely by the reason that recovery officer was not posted as regular SHO at police station.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985—Sections 8/15—Seizure of contraband—Conviction and sentence—Although, it is desirable that proper efforts must be made by Recovery officer to associate two or more independent public witnesses in proceedings to be taken for search and seizure of suspected contraband and it is also desirable to examine such witnesses during trial if they were associated at the time of recovery and in present case from evidence available on record it cannot be said that proper efforts were made and necessary steps were taken by Recovery Officer to associate independent public witnesses—However, in absence of such witnesses, if statements of police officers are otherwise reliable and when there is no animosity established against them by accused, conviction can be based upon their statements also and entire case cannot be doubted on that account only— Merely on the basis of information given by co-accused during investigation under Section 27 of Evidence Act present appellants cannot be connected with recovered narcotic drug—Appeals Partly allowed.

       (B) Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985—Section 42—Power to make search and seizure—Even an officer of rank of Sub Inspector of Police not regularly posted as SHO of a police station but having charge thereof in absence of regular SHO is competent under Section 42 of the Act to undertake proceedings including that of search and seizure of contraband under provisions of Act—Such proceedings do not stand vitiated merely by reason that recovery officer was not posted as regular SHO at police station.

       Result—Appeals Partly allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Prashant Kumar Agarwal, J.

1. The accused-appellants have filed these two separate criminal appeals under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.3.2011 passed by the Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Jhalawar in Sessions Case No. 26/2009 whereby learned trial Court convicted the appellants-Shri Ramswaroop and Shri Chauth Mal for offence under Section 8/15 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and imposed fine of Rs. one lac and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for one year whereas appellants-Shri Bal Chand and Shri Mohan Lal were convicted for offence under Section 8/29 of the Act and both of them were also similarly sentenced. As both these appeals arise out of the same judgment and order, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment and order.

2. As per the prosecution case, brief relevant facts for the disposal of these appeals are that on 14.4.2009 during "Nakabandi" at Sunel Tiraha within the jurisdiction of Police Station Jhalrapatan when truck bearing registration RJ-20-G-6571 was intercepted at 6.30 a.m. by the then Incharge-Shri Suraj Singh of aforesaid police station, appellant-Shri Chauth Mal was found on the driver seat whereas appellant-Shri Ramswaroop was sitting alongwith him in the cabin of the truck whereas four other persons were also occupant of the said vehicle and suspicion being aroused that the truck may be carrying some contraband, on search being made narcotic drug "Doda Chura" total weight 101 Kg. was found contained in six bags without any valid licence or permit. As at the spot weighing machine was not available, the aforesaid vehicle alongwith appellants-Shri Ramswaroop and Shri Chauth Mal and four other persons found sitted in the vehicle were brought by the police party to the police station where the recovered narcotic drug was weighed. As per prosecution case 250 gms. of the substance was taken from each of the bag as sample and the same was sealed and the remaining substance was also sealed accordingly. During the course of investigation information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act having been provided by appellants-Shri Ramswaroop and Shri Chauth Mal to the effect that the recovered narcotic drug (Doda-Chura) was obtained by them from appellants-Shri Bal Chand and Shri Mohan Lal, their respective house was searched and finding them also involved in the incident they were also arrested. After usual investigation charge-sheet for offence under Section 8/15 was filed against appellants-Shri Ramswaroop and Shri Chauth Mal and for offence under Section 8/29 of the Act against Shri Bal Chand and Shri Mohan Lal and in order to prove the charge during trial prosecution produced oral as well as documentary evidence whereas each of the accused-appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution evidence and specifically stated that he has falsely been implicated and in defence produced one Shri Chhitarlal as DW1. Learned trial Court after considering the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and appreciating and evaluating the evidence made available on record, convicted and sentenced the appellants as already stated. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants are before this Court by way of these two separate appeals. During the course of hearing of these appeals learned counsel for appellant-Shri Mohan Lal stated that he has died during pendency of his appeal.

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 581/2011

3. In support of this appeal learned counsel for the appellants first of all submitted that from the evidence available on record and more particularly from the admissions made by the material prosecution witnesses it is clear that no proper efforts were made and steps were taken by Shri



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top