Back
2019 Supreme(All) 2475
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
Nafe Singh - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 808 of 1991
Decided On : 12-07-2019
For the Appellant : V.P. Srivastava, Nishi Mehrotra (Ac), P.P. Srivastava.
For the Respondent: A.G.A, Gyan Prakash.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for fair and untainted investigation in cases involving illegal drugs, emphasizing strict compliance with legal procedures, particularly regarding the search of a person under Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
Headnote:
N.D.P.S. Act - Illegal Drug Possession - Sections 20, 23 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Sections 20 and 23 of the N.D.P.S. Act and emphasized the mandatory requirements of Section 50 regarding the search of a person. The judgment highlighted the importance of fair and untainted investigation in cases involving illegal drugs and the need for strict compliance with legal procedures.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was convicted for possessing illegal drugs based on a search conducted by the Custom Inspector and his team at a railway station. The accused denied the charges, claiming that the search was illegal and he was falsely implicated.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the search conducted by the Custom Inspector and his team did not comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act. It noted discrepancies and improvements in the testimony of prosecution witnesses, leading to a finding of a perverse and illegal judgment.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the search process, compliance with Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act, and the credibility of the prosecution's case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of fair and untainted investigation in cases involving illegal drugs and highlighted the need for strict compliance with legal procedures, especially regarding the search of a person under Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the accused was acquitted from the charges under Sections 20/23 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The court also directed payment to the Amicus Curiae for her legal assistance.
JUDGMENT :
1. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 18.04.1991, passed by VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur, in Sessions Trial No. 553 of 1987, convicting the accused-appellant for the offence under Sections 20, 23 N.D.P.S. Act and sentencing him to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under each section along with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in each section and in default of fine one year additional rigorous imprisonment. It has further been directed that all the sentences will run concurrently.
2. Brief facts of the case as disclosed in the complaint and recovery memo is that on 20.04.1987, the Custom Inspector, Gorakhpur namely Sri Suresh Singh got information at 08:00 P.M. that a person is coming from Nepal with Nepali Charas on 20/21.04.1987 and will reach at Gorakhpur Railway Station in in the mid night. Custom Inspector Suresh Singh along with Rajesh Kumar Singh (Custom Inspector) and two Constables R.B. Ram and R.C. Tripathi reached at the station at about 10:00 P.M. At about 12:30 in the mid night, a truck stopped in front of railway station coming from the side of Gorakhnath and a person with a wallet stepped down from the truck. On inquiry by the Custom Inspector and his team, the person revealed his address and name. Thereupon, he was taken to the Regional Office, Custom Department, Gorakhpur. There, the Custom Inspector himself, before independent witnesses, conducted search in person of the accused and from his wallet, 21 rolls with two broken pieces of Charas were recovered. On being asked, he disclosed him name to be Nafe Singh son of Balwant Singh, resident of Badari old Delhi and he voluntarily confessed that after purchasing the Charas from Nepal, he was going to sell the same in Delhi. Because there was no weighing machine, therefore, the recovered Charas was delivered in the custody of Guard/witness Nanhku Ram deputed there and the Custom Inspector and other witnesses went back.
3. In the morning, at about 07:00 A.M., they came back in the office and took the recovered Charas to Shiv Mishthan Bhandar where on being weighed, the Charas was found to be 1 Kg. and 350 gms. The recovered Charas was sealed in a clothe and sample was also taken. The memo of recovery which was started to be written in the night itself but because, the Charas was not being weighed by that time, the memo was completed after weighing the same in the morning. The memo was written by Ganga Singh on the dictation of Custom Inspector Suresh Singh. On the basis of recovery, Custom Inspector Rajesh Kumar Singh filed a complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur from where the case was committed to the court of sessions.
4. The accused was charged for the offence under Section 20/23 N.D.P.S. Act and on denial, he was tried for the said offence.
5. The statement of PW-1 (Custom Inspector) Suresh Singh and PW-2 Nanhku Ram was recorded, who have proved Ext. Ka-1 Recovery Memo, Ext. Ka-2 statement of the accused Nafe Singh dated 21.04.1987 and Ext. Ka-3 search list. Custom Inspector Rajesh Kumar Singh was also examined on being summoned by the court as CW-1, who proved the complaint as Ext-1.
6. The Statement of the accused appellant was recorded Under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure who said that all the witnesses are departmental witnesses and they have given false evidence against him. In fact, he had come in relation to a marriage to his relative Moti Lal and he was on station in order to get a train for Delhi and when he was trying to purchase a ticket, he was asked by a person, what is inside his bag and on being said that there was clothes and on being asked, who he is, a hot conversation took place and he was taken into custody and a false case was prepared against him. They got his signature on a blank paper. There is no report of chemical examination nor any sample was taken for that purpose.
7. After hearing the prosecution and the counsel for the accused
