Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SHAMIM AHMED, J.
Karan Pathak – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 173 of 2003
Decided On : 22-02-2024
N.D.P.S. Act - Conviction under Section 8/18 - Section 50, 55, 57 of N.D.P.S. Act - The court discussed the importance and relevancy of Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act and emphasized the mandatory compliance of this provision. It highlighted the safeguards provided in the Act and the necessity of strict adherence to the prescribed procedures. The court also referred to relevant case laws to support its interpretation of the legal provisions.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 8/18 of N.D.P.S. Act for possession of morphine. The prosecution's case was based on the testimony of police witnesses, and the appellant claimed false implication. The trial court convicted the appellant, leading to this appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the mandatory compliance of Section 50 N.D.P.S. Act, and the evidence of police witnesses was not wholly reliable. It concluded that the trial court's judgment was against settled principles of law and acquitted the appellant.
Issues: Mandatory compliance of Section 50 N.D.P.S. Act, reliability of police witnesses' testimony, and proper appreciation of evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of strict compliance with Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act and highlighted the safeguards provided in the Act. It also considered the reliability of police witnesses' testimony and the prosecution's failure to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The appellant was acquitted, and the impugned judgment and order convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 8/18 of N.D.P.S. Act were set aside and reversed. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant's personal bond and surety bonds were canceled.
JUDGMENT :
SHAMIM AHMED, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 03.02.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Court No. 4), Barabanki, in Criminal Trial No. 141 of 1997, convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 8/18 of N.D.P.S. Act for two years rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the prosecution case are that on 06.05.1997, Station House Officer, Rahimuddin Khan, was on patrolling duty along with other Police personnel and when he received information that one person is sitting at the door of Prakash Pathak of village Kotwa Sadak. Believing on this information, the Police Party tried to procure witnesses, but nobody became ready to witness the incident. Then the S.H.O. alongwith other Police personnel reached the spot. Seeing the Police, the person sitting there started running, however, he was caught by the police party. On being asked his name, he told Karan Pathak. Upon interrogation, he confessed that he was carrying morphine; He was told that he had options either to get him searched before Gazetted Police Officer or before patrolling police officer. Thereupon, he asked the police party to conduct search upon him. Thereafter, accused was searched out by the patrolling police party with his consent. About 250 gms. of morphine was recovered from the accused person. Thereafter, recovery memo was prepared; recovered contraband morphine was sealed; the accused were arrested and a criminal case on the basis of recovery memo was lodged under Sections 8/18 of N.D.P.S. Act at Police Station Ram Sahehi Ghat, District Barabanki.
3. After investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellant.
4. The accused-appellant was charged for offence u/s 8/18 N.D.P.S. Act; to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.
5. In support of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined six witnesses, namely, S.H.O. Sri Rahimuddin Khan as PW-1; Sri Daljeet Singh as PW-2; Constable Sri Rambilas Singh as PW-3; Constable Sri Ramchander Arya as PW-4; Constable Sri Rajesh Kumar Gupta as PW-5 and Constable Sri Chhajan Singh as PW-6.
6. Genuineness of the formal police papers i.e. recovered contraband and Charge Sheet was admitted by the appellant.
7. Appellant was examined under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (in short 'Code') wherein he stated that he had been falsely implicated as he was brought by the police officers for doing work and he did not know why the police had implicated him.
8. Learned trial Court, after going through the evidence available on record as well as after due hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 8/18 of N.D.P.S. Act for two years rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation.
9. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the appellant has filed this appeal.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that prosecution case, based on statements of S.H.O. Sri Rahimuddin Khan as PW-1; Sri Daljeet Singh as PW-2; Constable Sri Rambilas Singh as PW-3; Constable Sri Ramchander Arya as PW-4; Constable Sri Rajesh Kumar Gupta as PW-5; and Constable Sri Chhajan Singh as PW-6, is wholly unreliable as the other police witnesses of patrolling party have not been examined by the prosecution. He further submitted that mandatory provisions of Sections 50, 55 and 57 of N.D.P.S. Act were not complied with. Learned counsel further submitted that the alleged place of recovery is a public place, but no effort to invite the public witness at the time of recovery was made by the police party. Learned trial Court without proper appreciation of the evidence available on record has illegally convicted the appellant vide impugned judgment and order which is liable to be set aside as the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In support of his argument learned counsel fo
The central legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act, the requirement for clear and individual communication of the right to be searched befor....
The prosecution's failure to comply with Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act invalidates the conviction, necessitating independent corroboration of police testimony.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of the safeguards provided in the N.D.P.S. Act, particularly Section 50, and the requirement for strict compliance with the....
Recovery of Ganja – Non-production of independent eye witness is a serious lacuna which can make prosecution case doubtful.
The mandatory nature of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act, the significance of individual communication of the right to the accused, and the necessity for strict compliance with the prescribed procedure....
The mandatory requirement of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act must be strictly followed, and failure to do so can lead to the acquittal of the accused due to insufficient evidence.
Strict compliance with Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act is mandatory, and failure to adhere to its provisions can vitiate the prosecution's case and lead to the acquittal of the accused.
The mandatory requirement under Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act to inform a suspect of their right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate is crucial for ensuring the fairne....
Offering third option of police search under Section 50 NDPS Act, alongside Magistrate or Gazetted Officer, vitiates recovery from clothing; combined with procedural doubts and contradictions, mandat....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
