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

2009 Supreme(UK) 414

2010 (1) N.C.C. 212
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Verma
Criminal Appeal No. 1446 of 2009
SARJU @ RAMU – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U.P. – Respondent
Decided on : 07.08.2009

For the Appellant :Mr. Anup Kumar, Mr. Shoeb Alam, Mr. Gaurav, Mr. Ashok Anand (for Dr. Kailash Chand), Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr. Mohd. Fuzail Khan, Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, Advocates

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sec. 311— Calling and recording of statement of a witness by Court — Also calling for a document — Jurisdiction of Court — Exercise of — A telegram been sent by wife of accused regarding arrest of her husband from his house — Fact of sending the same neither denied nor disputed — The trial Judge should have exercised his jurisdiction u/s 311 — Superintendent of Police should have been called and recorded his statement. (Para 13)

       (B) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — In a case under NDPS Act, particularly where serious allegations are made against police officials — Recovery of contraband in presence of independent witness assumes significance. (Para 14)

       (C) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Secs. 50, 42 — Compliance with — Is necessary — Well settled that provisions of NDPS Act, being harsh in nature — Procedural safe guards contained therein must scrupulously be complied with. (Paras 16 to 18)

       (D) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Secs. 33, 8/21 and Cr.P.C., 1973, Sec. 360 and Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 — Resort to provisions in case of one of accused only by reference to Sec. 33, N.D.P.S. Act on misreading of entire provision of Sec. 33 — Deprecated. (Para 18)

       ¼v½ n.M izfd;k lafgrk] 1973] /kkjk 311 & U;k;ky; }kjk lk{kh dks cqyk;k tkuk vkSj mldk c;ku ntZ fd;k tkuk & vkSj fdlh nLrkost ds fy, Hkh cqyk;k tkuk & U;k;ky; dk dk;Z{ks= ,oa mldk mi;ksx & vfHk;qDr dh iRuh }kjk ,d Vsyhxzke mlds edku ls mldh fxj¶rkjh ds ckjs esa Hkstk x;k Fkk & bl rF; dks u rks udkjk x;k uk gh fookfnr crk;k x;k & fopkj.k U;k;k/kh'k dks /kkjk 311 lhvkj ih lh ds vUrxZr vius dk;Z{ks= dk mi;ksx djuk pkfg, Fkk & iqfyl v/kh{kd dks cqyk;k tkuk pkfg, Fkk vkSj mldk c;ku ntZ fd;k tkuk pkfg, FkkA ¼izLrj 13½

       ¼c½ Lokid vkS"kf/k ,oa euksRrstd inkFkZ vf/kfu;e] 1985 & Lokid vkS"kf/k ,oa euksRrstd inkFkZ vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr fdlh dsl esa fo'ks"k :i ls] tc iqfyl deZpkfj;ksa ij xaHkhj vkjksi yxk;s x;s gksa & fuf"k) inkFkZ dh cjkenxh fdlh Lora= lk{kh dh mifLFkfr esa dh tkuh egRoiw.kZ gksrh gSA ¼izLrj 14½

       ¼l½ Lokid vkS"kf/k ,oa euksRrstd inkFkZ vf/kfu;e] 1985] /kkjk 50] 42 & dk ifjikyu fd;k tkuk vko';d gS & ;g lqLFkkfir gS fd Lokid vkS"kf/k ,oa euksRrstd inkFkZ vf/kfu;e ds izkfo/kku izdfr ls l[r gSa blesa fufgr izfd;kRed lko/kkfu;ksa dk lqfuf'pr :i ls ikyu fd;k tkuk visf{kr gSA ¼izLrj 16 ls 18½

       ¼n½ Lokid vkS"kf/k ,oa euksRrstd inkFkZ vf/kfu;e] 1985] /kkjk 33] 8@21 vkSj lhvkj ih lh 1973] /kkjk 360] vkSj izkscs'ku vkQ vkQsUMlZ ,DV] 1958 & /kkjk 33 Lokid vkS"kf/k ,oa euksRrstd inkFkZ vf/kfu;e dk gokyk nsdj dsoy ,d vfHk;qDr ds dsl eas vkJ; fy;k tk, tcfd /kkjk 33 ds lEiw.kZ izkfo/kku dk xyr okpu gqvk gks & bls fu#Rlkfgr fd;k x;kA ¼izLrj 18½

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J. — Leave granted.

2. This appeal by special leave arises out of a judgment and order dated 30th January 2008 passed by a learned single judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No.491 of 1991 whereby and whereunder the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 4th September 1991 passed by the V Additional Sessions Judge, Barabanki in Sessions Trial Nos. 393 of 1989 and 395 of 1989 convicting the appellant for commission of an offence punishable under Section 8/21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, “NDPS Act”) and sentencing him to undergo 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment as also the fine of Rs. 1 lakh, and in default, to undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment, was affirmed.

3. Shrikant Mishra was the Station House Officer (SHO) of Safdarganj Police Station situate in the district of Barabanki. He and other members of the police party were on a patrolling duty. They came out of the Police Station in the night of 5th January 1989 with Constable No.56 Ram Shankar Srivastava (P.W.3) and Constable No.277 – Vidya Prasad Pandey. They reached near a village commonly known as “Baghaura” in the official jeep No. UHG 4682, which was driven by one Satyadev Ojha.

4. An informer allegedly reported to the appellants as also one Shobhalal of village Baghaura and Ramdutt @ Dutta of village Bariarpur illegally selling morphine in packets to the truck drivers and the people of the area. According to the said informer, they were said to have been sitting on the road side near the mill on one Vishwanath Kashyap from 6 O’clock in the morning. Appellant along with said Shobhalal and Ramdutt were said to have been identified by the said police party to be sitting on the road side at about 6.15 a.m. They became a bit perplexed and frightened after seeing the police party. “Being assured”, Shrikant Mishra, Officer-in-charge, went to Barabanki to obtain authority letter for the purpose of carrying out search and seizure. He instructed the other constables to keep an eye on them. He upon obtaining the authority letter allegedly came back from Barabanki after some time. He requested some passer-by to become witness to the seizure. They allegedly refused.

5. Letters of consent were prepared in ‘the names of accused to the effect that they were ready and willing to be searched by the Officer-in-Charge in stead and place of a Gazetted Officer. Persons of all the accused were searched. From the right pocket of the sweater of the appellant 40 packets of morphine and from his left pocket about 70 grams of morphine wrapped in a paper were found. From the person of Shobhalal about 82 grams of morphine was found; whereas from the person of Ram Dutt about 53 grams of morphine was recovered.

6. Appellant, however, has a different story to tell. According to him, the SHO as also the constables had an evil eye on the appellant’s wife. They came to his house at about 9:00 p.m. in the night of 5/6.1.1989 while his wife was serving the food to the children. He was not well. When the door of his house was knocked by a constable, his wife who examined herself as D.W.1 came out of the house and saw the Constable and the SHO. The constable was used to be called by local people as “Lala”. They enquired about him. When D.W.1 wanted to call him, the said constable said that there was no work with him but it was with her. He thereafter told the SHO that this was the same woman who goes to Chakki for grinding. On hearing that, she started going back to her house. The said constable advanced towards here. She shouted loudly. On her shouting, Sohan Lal and the appellant came. D.W.1 was slapped by the said constable 2-3 times and thereafter the appellant was arrested. D.W.1 along with Sohan Lal and her brother-in-law went to Barabanki to the house of the Superintendent of Police by truck. The Superintendent of Police was described as ‘Captain Sahib’. They could not meet























































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