IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
SANJEEV KUMAR, MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JJ.
Mohd. Yousuf Ganai – Petitioner
Versus
State – Respondent
CRA No. 5 Of 2018
Decided On : 04-02-2023
NDPS Act - Conviction - Sections 8/20 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Sections 42, 43, and 50 of the NDPS Act and their interpretations. It highlighted the distinction between personal search and search from a bag, emphasizing that Section 50 is not attracted when contraband is recovered from a bag. The court also referred to the powers vested in officers under Sections 42 and 53 of the NDPS Act and their admissibility under the Evidence Act. The judgment emphasized the need for compliance with procedural safeguards and the admissibility of confessional statements under Section 67 of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for possession of narcotics drugs under sections 8/20 of the NDPS Act. The prosecution proved the recovery of charas from the appellant's possession at a railway station. The appellant challenged the conviction on the grounds of procedural violations and inadmissibility of evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the contraband was recovered from the conscious possession of the appellant, and the seizure was conducted in compliance with the NDPS Act. The court rejected the argument that the trial was vitiated due to procedural violations and inadmissible confessional statements. The court also modified the sentence from 15 years to 10 years due to mitigating circumstances.
Issues: The issues included compliance with procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act, admissibility of confessional statements, and the authority to file the complaint before the trial court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for compliance with procedural safeguards and the admissibility of evidence under the NDPS Act. It also highlighted the distinction between personal search and search from a bag, and the powers vested in officers under the Act.
Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence to 10 years, considering mitigating circumstances. The fine and default imprisonment were maintained. The period of detention already undergone by the appellant was set off.
JUDGMENT :
[Sanjeev Kumar, J.]
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 05.03.2018 recorded by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court') in file No. 02/Spl Challan titled 'Narcotics Control Bureau, Jammu v. Mohd. Yousaf Ganaie' whereby the trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offences under sections 8/20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ["NDPS Act"] and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen(15) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1.00 lacs, in default to undergo six months imprisonment. The Trial Court further ordered that the period of detention already undergone by the appellant shall be set off.
2. Before we advert to the grounds of challenge urged by Mr. Hussain, learned Senior Counsel representing the appellant/accused, to assail the impugned judgment and the order of sentence, it is necessary to first elude to complete resume of the prosecution case.
3. Intelligence Officer of Narcotic Control Bureau, Jammu received a secret information from a reliable source that the appellant/accused was carrying narcotics drugs and was going to board Swaraj Express Train on 31.01.2014 from Jammu Tawi Railway Station. On receiving the said information, the Zonal Director asked Sh. Satish Kumar Sharma, I/O to constitute a team and take action under law. The team so constituted proceeded towards Railway Station, Jammu. The SHO Police Station, Railway Station was also requested by the I.O. to provide police personnel for checking. The SHO directed S.I. Jagjeet Singh, HC Baj Singh and Constable Ranjeet Singh to join the NCB team at VIP Gate, Railway Station Jammu. A Naka was laid at the VIP Gate. The I.O. apprised the police personnel about the appellant/accused who was going to board Swaraj Express and was keeping narcotics drugs in his possession. The I.O. requested HC Baj Singh and Constable Ranjeet Singh to remain present as search witnesses. Thereafter, the I.O. also requested the two persons, namely Ravi Kumar son of Sh. Munna Lal resident of Mashi Mohalla, Sector 5, Trikuta Nagar, Jammu and Mohan Lal son of Sh. Hans Raj resident of Shanker Nagar, Channi Rama Jammu, who were passing by the aforesaid Naka, to become the search witnesses. Both of them agreed to remain present during the search. Thereafter, the team of NCB and police, in presence of the above-named witnesses, started checking the identity cards and bags of the passengers. A about 10:45 am, one passenger with grey coloured bag on his shoulder came at the Naka point. On enquiry, he disclosed his name as Mohd Yousaf Ganai and shown his identity card. The I.O. introduced himself and other team members to the said person and requested him to open his bag for checking. The accused opened his bag which contained a blanket, a towel and two yellow coloured bags. On opening the said bags, four packets, which were wrapped with brown and white packing tape, were found in it. All the packets were opened in the presence of independent witnesses. Brown hard material, which was giving smell of charas, was found in these packets and a small quantity from each was taken and tested with the help of Drug Detection Kit which gave positive result for the presence of charas. The total weight of the recovered material was found to be 06.200 kg. The recovery memos were prepared and sent to the Central Revenues Control Laboratory ["CRCL"], New Delhi for examination. Thereafter the statement of the accused was recorded in which he admitted the recovery of 6.023 kg. charas from his possession. He was accordingly arrested.
4. After completion of the investigation, the challan was filed against the appellant/accused before the trail court.
5. The trail court, vide its order dated 03.06.2014, framed charges against the accused for commission of offences punishable under sections 8/20 NDPS Act. The accused pleaded not guilty to the changes and claimed to be tried.
6. To
Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana
Mukesh Singh v. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi)
The court upheld the trial court's acquittal of the accused due to significant procedural violations and lack of evidence connecting them to the alleged drug possession.
In drug-related offenses, strict adherence to statutory procedural safeguards is mandatory for a fair trial, and non-compliance vitiates the prosecution case.
Non-compliance with the procedure for drawing up the sample of the narcotic, lack of compliance with the prescribed procedure under the NDPS Act, 1985 at all the stages, and the case being based on t....
Compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act is essential for conviction; however, the absence of independent witnesses does not automatically discredit credible police testimony.
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.