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

2017 Supreme(Raj) 1224

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Pankaj Bhandari, J.
Taufiq Ali @ Naresh S/o Sh. Salim Ali - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan Through PP - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Appeal Nos. 715, 668, 836, 933 of 2016 with S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 945 of 2017
Decided On : 09-06-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Sumer Chand Sharma, Mr. Sanjay Sharma, Mr. Anil Upman, Mr. Rajveer Singh, Mr. Ram Ratan Gurjar, Mr. Anil Upman
For the Respondent: Mr. Ram Ratan Gurjar

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 471 and 474 - NDPS Act – Sections 8/15 – Criminal Produce Code, 1973 - Section 195 – Using as genuine a forged 1[document or electronic record] - Appeal against conviction – As per prosecution version at 11.35 a.m. Fortuner Car came from Agra side - On seeing the police party the driver signaled to a Mini Truck which was following Fortuner Car to return back - Mini Truck was stopped, vehicle Fortuner Car was being driven by Roshan Singh, Mini Truck was being driven by Sandeep Singh @ Dharmendra Singh, Joginder @ Jasvinder Singh and Taufiq Ali @ Naresh were sitting in the Mini Truck - It is alleged that 99 bags of poppy husk were seized from the Mini Truck and one bag was seized from Fortuner Car - Out of 100 bags, two bags were containing 20 Kg. each of Poppy Straw and remaining 98 bags were containing 40 Kg each of poppy husk. 500 Gms. of material was drawn from each bag, same was mixed and sample and control sample were drawn - Team returned at 7.20 p.m. and lodged FIR - Held, Court view that as documents and evidence produced point out towards false implication, no preliminary inquiry is required to be conducted by this Court - This Court therefore record finding that Sayar Singh-CI, Kailash Chaudhary-CI, Phool Chand-SI, Sunil Gupta-SI, Vinod Kumar-Head Constable, Shailendra Kumar-Constable, Ramswaroop-Constable, Santosh-Constable, Nathu Lal-Constable Dudi Ram-Constable have given false evidence with intend to procure conviction and Sayar Singh has instituted a false case against appellant – Court therefore direct Deputy Registrar (Judicial) to make a complaint in writing against aforesaid officers and send same to Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Jaipur Metropolitan - Complaint should be signed by Deputy Registrar (Judicial) and copy of this judgment along with record of case be sent forthwith to Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Jaipur Metropolitan to proceed in accordance with law - Appeal allowed and States appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Bhandari, J.

Appellants Taufiq Ali @ Naresh, Roshan Singh, Sandeep Singh @ Dharmendra Singh and Joginder @ Jasvinder Singh have preferred separate appeals aggrieved by judgment and order dated 24.06.2016 passed by Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Jaipur Metropolitan in Sessions Case No.30/2011 (CIS No.0000008/2014) whereby all accused-appellants have been convicted under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act and sentence ten years of rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.one lac has been imposed on each of them. On non payment of fine, the appellants have been directed to undergo additional one year rigorous imprisonment. Accused-appellants Sandeep Singh @ Dharmendra Singh, Joginder @ Jasvinder Singh and Taufiq Ali @ Naresh each has also been convicted under Sections 471 and 474 IPC and sentence for two years and fine of Rs.2,000/- has been imposed for each of the offences under the Indian Penal Code. On non payment of fine, the appellants have been directed to undergo additional two months simple imprisonment.

2. State has also preferred Criminal Appeal aggrieved by the judgment and order and only prayer made in the appeal is that the sentence imposed be enhanced.

3. S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 945/2017 has been preferred by Taufiq Ali @ Naresh aggrieved by order dated 24.1.2017 passed by Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Jaipur whereby the Court below has directed that vehicle Fortuner Car bearing registration No. DL-1T-AD 3976 be confiscated and auctioned.

4. Factual matrix of the case are that on 16.6.2011 SOG received secret information at 7.30 that Gangster-Anand Pal Singh is coming from Bharatpur to Jaipur. A team consisting of C.I.-Sayar Singh, C.I.-Kailash Choudhary, Sub-Inspector-Phool Chand, S.I.-Sunil Gupta, S.I.-Jai Singh, Head Constable-Vinod Kumar and Constables-Nathulal, Dodi Ram, Narendra and Sompal along with driver-Krishna Kumar and Amar Singh was constituted. Barricading was done at 7.50 a.m. at a distance of 7 Kms from SOG Police Station on the route in between Jagatpura and Jaipur Agra National Highway near RSEB Office.

5. As per the prosecution version at 11.35 a.m. Fortuner Car bearing registration No.DL-1T-AD 3976 came from Agra side. On seeing the police party the driver-Roshan Singh signaled to a Mini Truck bearing registration No. PB-29-H-9056 which was following the Fortuner Car bearing registration No.DL-1T-AD 3976 to return back. Mini Truck bearing registration No. PB-29-H-9056 was stopped, vehicle Fortuner Car bearing registration No.DL-1T-AD 3976 was being driven by Roshan Singh, the Mini Truck bearing registration No. PB-29-H- 9056 was being driven by Sandeep Singh @ Dharmendra Singh, Joginder @ Jasvinder Singh and Taufiq Ali @ Naresh were sitting in the Mini Truck bearing registration No. PB-29-H-9056. It is alleged that 99 bags of poppy husk were seized from the Mini Truck bearing registration No. PB-29-H-9056 and one bag was seized from the Fortuner Car bearing registration No.DL-1T-AD 3976. Out of 100 bags, two bags were containing 20 Kg. each of Poppy Straw and remaining 98 bags were containing 40 Kg each of poppy husk. 500 Gms. of material was drawn from each bag, same was mixed and sample and control sample were drawn. The team returned at 7.20 p.m. and lodged FIR.

6. Police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused-appellants. The trial Court framed charges against the appellants. As many as 34 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and Ex.P-1 to P-316 were exhibited. In defence Ex.D1 to D18 were exhibited. Ex.C-1 to C-11 call details were exhibited by the Court. DW-1 to DW-3 were produced as defence witnesses by the accused-appellants. The Court below after hearing the arguments convicted the appellants as herein above mentioned.

7. It is contended by the counsel for the appellants that the entire recovery and proceedings are fabricated. To buttress this argument, counsel for the appellants has argued that there are five vehicles which are involved in th





































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
whatsapp-icon Back to top