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

2023 Supreme(All) 2927

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.
Mohd.Haleem And 3 Others - Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.201 of 1994, Criminal Appeals No.182, 191 and 206 - all of 1994
Decided on : 22-12-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : N. Mohan,A.K. Tiwari,Ayodhya Prasad Mishra, Rashid Ahmad
For the Respondent: G.A.

The court held that non-compliance with the provisions of the NDPS Act, particularly relating to authorization of officers for search and seizure, invalidated the conviction.

Headnote:(A) NDPS Act - Sections 42, 57, 8/18, 8/21, and 8/22 - Conviction under drug offenses - Accused convicted and sentenced to 10 years R.I. and fines for involvement in morphine production - Court found substantial procedural errors in search and seizure processes as officer was not authorized under Section 42 at the time of arrest. (Paras 2, 18, 36, 37)

(B) Compliance with procedural regulations - Strict adherence to Sections 42(1) and 42(2) is mandated; failing to record information and sending a copy to a superior officer vitiated the investigation, rendering the trial flawed. (Paras 20, 26, 36)

(C) Burden of proof - The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt; failure to provide tangible evidence for chain of custody and compliance undermined the conviction. (Paras 38)

Facts of the case:
Appellants were convicted based on the alleged production of morphine in Barabanki. The arrests were made during a police raid on 03.06.1986. Procedural violations in executing the search warrant and chain of custody led to questioning the validity of evidence.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the appellants were not legally arrested or charged due to the officer’s lack of authority to act under the NDPS Act at the time. The procedural breaches regarding recording and notifications destabilized the prosecution's standing.

Issues: (i) Legality of the search and seizure process conducted by an unauthorized officer; (ii) Non-compliance with mandatory provisions of writing down and forwarding information under Section 42.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that total non-compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act is fatal for prosecution; findings confirmed that the evidence did not satisfy legal standards, requiring acquittal.

Result: Appeals allowed, judgment set aside, and appellants acquitted.

Table of Content
1. common appeal filed against conviction and sentencing under ndps act. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments against the legality of search and seizure under the ndps act. (Para 18 , 19)
3. court's analysis of compliance with the procedural requirements of the ndps act. (Para 20 , 21 , 24 , 26 , 27 , 30 , 37)
4. final ruling acquitting the appellants due to procedural violations. (Para 38)

JUDGMENT :

Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.

1. Criminal appeal No.201 of 1994 and the connected criminal appeals No.182, 191 and 206 - all of 1994, were heard together and a common judgment is being passed as the appeals arise out of same sessions trial. Criminal Appeal No.201 of 1994 is the leading case.

2. Present criminal appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 19.4.1994 passed by Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Barabanki in Sessions Trial No.296 of 1987 whereby the accused appellants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo 10 years R.I. with Rs.1 lac fine in each of the offences under sections 8/18, 8/21 and 8/22 of N.D.P.S. Act, with default provision.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned AGA for the State.

4. During pendency of this appeal, appellant no. 1 and appellant no. 3 of criminal appeal No.201 of 1994 have died and the appeal with regard to appellant no. 1 and appellant no. 3 has already been abated vide order dated 14.03.2013. The Court thus proceeds to hear the appeal qua appellant no. 2 Mohd. Habeeb and appellant no.4 Lal Mohammad as regards the leading criminal appeal.

Likewise, in criminal appeal No.206 of 1994, the appellant No.2 Mohammad Kaleem has died and the appeal qua the said appellant has abated vide order dated 18.9.2023. Thus, the appeal with regard to Mohammad Aneesh, appellant No.1 is taken up for hearing along with other criminal appeals.

5. Prosecution case is that on 03.06.1986, when the S.O. R.P. Shukla was present in police station and at 12:15 hours in the day, a secret informer informed that in the house of one Mohammad Ali son of Bhaggan, Village Tikra Usma, P.S. Jaidpur, Barabanki, Ante through 22-25 persons are making morphine. On this information, he took the present police personnel namely SI Sri Harishankar Singh, SI Sri A.K. Singh, Sri Jagpal Singh, Constable-187 Ramkrishn Mishra, Constable- 344 Jitendra Singh, Constable-507 Kavaldev Singh, Constable-595 Dhanpat Lal, Constable-556 Ramashankar Yadav, Constable-114 Udaybhan Singh and also constables G-Company of second Batallion PAC who were present at the police station HC-9738 Tassavur hussain Khan, Constable-9804 Ram Prasad Tiwari, Constable 9959 Ram Kewal Singh, Constable 9794 Hardev Ram and Jeep Driver Constable Ram Prakash along with Govt. Jeep No. UTD-5018 reached to the house of Mohammad Ali and entered from the west gate and on seeing police personnel, Atik Ante son of Yaseen, Javir son of Wahid, Moharram Ali son of Bhaggan, Mahbube son of Moharram Ali, Younis son of Moharram Ali ran away from the north stairs of the house and jumped towards eastern side. Efforts were made to catch them, however, it went in vain. Other accused persons who were making morphine and were trying to escape at about 1:05 hours were caught along with the equipments and chemicals. Upon questioning they told their names as (i) Mohd. Aleem son of Sohrav, (ii) Mohd. Haleem son of Mohd. Saleem, (iii) Mohd. Haveev son of Shafi (iv) Abdul Mabood son of Mohd. Mustafa, (v) Shahe Alam son of Bhaggan, (vi) Mohd Ajeem son of fSohrav, (vii) Mohd. Akeel son of Mohd. Naseer, (viii) Mohd. Jaleel son of Mohd. Saleem, (ix) Mohd. Anees son of Mohd. Vaseer, (x) Mohd. Younis son of Cheda, (xi) Mohd. Suleman son of Abdul Gaffur, (xii) Mohd. Anees son of Bhaggan Sakinan Tikra Usma, P.S. Jaidpur, Barabanki, (xiii) Abdul Majeed son of Mod. Raseem, (xiv) Mohd. Haneef son of Suleman, (xv) Mohd. Kaleem son of Saleem Sakinan Tikra Murtaza, P.S. Jiadpur Barabanki and (xvi) Lal Mohammad son of Fakeere, P.S. Safdarganj, Barabanki. Upon inquiry it was

              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
              logo-black

              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

              qr

              Scan Me!

              India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

              For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

              whatsapp-icon Back to top