Back
2019 Supreme(All) 1559
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
Smt. Champa Devi - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 571 of 1991
Decided On : 12-07-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : N.D. Shukla, Sakshi Kesarwani
The main legal point established is that the recovery of illegal drugs from a bag does not require compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, as clarified by relevant case laws.
Headnote:
NDPS Act - Illegal Drug Transportation - Section 20(2) - Summary: The court convicted the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 20(2) of the NDPS Act for possessing illegal drugs. The judgment discussed the procedure of recovery, compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, and relevant case laws. The court upheld the conviction based on the evidence of recovery from the accused's bag, concluding that Section 50 was not applicable in this case.
Fact of the Case:
The Excise Inspector and his team recovered 2 Kgs. of Charas from the accused-appellant in a general compartment of a train. The accused was convicted under Section 20(2) of the NDPS Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty based on the evidence of recovery and non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The court upheld the conviction and dismissed the appeal.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the recovery procedure, compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, and the applicability of relevant case laws.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the recovery from the accused's bag did not require compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, based on relevant case laws.
Final Decision: The criminal appeal was dismissed, and the accused was not required to undergo remaining imprisonment.
JUDGMENT :
PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 13.03.2019, passed by IInd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Varanasi, in Special Case No. 10 of 1990, convicting the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 20(2) N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station G.R.P. Moghalsarai, District Varanasi and sentencing the accused-appellant under the aforesaid section for ten years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 1 lakh and in default of fine one year additional rigorous imprisonment.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 20.03.1990, Excise Inspector R.B. Singh of Sector-3, Moghalsarai along with his colleague Ali Ahmad Siddiqui, Ram Kewal, Moti Lal, Radhey Shyam Pandey and Bhajan Lal was at platform no. 6 of Railway Station, Moghalsarai, District Varanasi in connection with checking of transportation of illegal drugs through railway. The Excise Inspector received information from an informer that two ladies, sitting in a general compartment of the Train No. 3007 Up Hawrah-Delhi Express, were in possession of Charas. The Excise Inspector and his team went inside the general compartment of the train with witnesses Satish Kumar, Pappu and Bachau Lal who were present in the compartment itself and ready to be witnesses of the recovery. In the presence of witnesses, the Excise Officials found the two ladies concealing something in their laps. Thereafter, on search being conducted, in the presence of the witnesses 2 Kgs. of Charas which wasWh concealed by the accused-appellant Smt. Champa Devi in a polythene bag was recovered. The Charas was kept in the form of candles in three packets covered with a paticote kept in an air bag.
3. The recovery memo was prepared by Excise Inspector on the spot in the presence of the witnesses and the recovered Charas was sealed in the above air bag itself. After completing the formalities of the recovery, the accused Smt. Champa Devi along with other lady Smt. Sonia Devi who was also found in possession of 1 Kg. Charas were brought to the Police Station G.R.P., Mughalsarai, where they were lodged and recovered articles were deposited.
4. Charges were framed by the court under Section 20(2) of the NDPS Act, which was denied by the accused. The present accused-appellant was tried for the said charge.
5. In support, the prosecution has examined PW-1 R.B. Singh who has proved the memo as Ext Ka-1. PW-2 Bachau Lal who is said to be an independent witness of the aforesaid recovery also supported the prosecution story. Report Ext Ka-3 and test report Ext Ka-2 are also on record. Statement of accused recorded under section 313 of the Code. The accused has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence in defence.
6. After hearing the prosecution side and the learned Amicus Curiae for the accused-appellant and perusing the evidence on record, the accused-appellant was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.
7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment, the convicted appellant has filed the present criminal appeal stating that the conviction and sentence are against the evidence on record and contrary to law. There was no compliance of Section 50 NDPS Act. The conviction was too severe and, therefore, the impugned judgment is not sustainable under law and is liable to be set aside and the accused-appellant is entitled for acquittal.
8. Heard Ms. Sakshi Kesarwani, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Shri L.D. Rajbhar, learned AGA and perused the record.
9. The charge being based on recovery of illegal charas, it has to be seen that recovery was made by observing due procedure. PW1 R.B. Singh (Excise Inspector) who is recovery officer in this case has proved the recovery memo as Ext. Ka1, test report Ext. Ka2 and complaint as Ext. Ka3 and has stated that on 20.3.1990 he was present at platform no 6 at Moghalsarai Railway station when 3007 up Hawrah Delhi Express arrived at the platform. He and his companions Constables Ali Ahmad Siddiqi, Moti
