Back
2005 Supreme(MP) 26
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
A. K. SHRIVASTAVA
RAMASWAMY - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondents
Criminal Appeal 1060 Of 2003
Decided On : 01/04/2005
Ajay Tamrakar, Sunita Chourasiya
The judgment established that suspicion cannot replace strict proof, emphasizing the requirement for evidence beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases.
Headnote:
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 8(c)/21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the application of Section 50 of the Act, the evidence related to the possession of contraband article, and the chemical examination under Section 8(c)/21 of the Act. The court highlighted the doubts raised regarding the investigation and the lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Sections 8(c)/21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 for possession of contraband article 'brown sugar'. The prosecution's case was based on evidence of possession and chemical examination. The appellant denied guilt and claimed false implication.
Finding of the Court:
The court found doubts in the prosecution's case, including discrepancies in the timing of events, doubts regarding the contraband article's examination, and the language barrier faced by the appellant during the investigation. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and set aside the conviction.
Issues: The issues revolved around the sufficiency of evidence, discrepancies in the timing of events, and the language barrier faced by the appellant during the investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that suspicion, no matter how strong, cannot replace strict proof. It highlighted the lack of clarity regarding the contraband article's examination and the doubts raised by discrepancies in the evidence. The court also considered the language barrier faced by the appellant during the investigation.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the appellant's conviction was set aside. The appellant was ordered to be released, and the seized amount was to be returned to him.
( 2 ) IN brief, the case of prosecution is that informant, on 30-12-2001 gave information to Salim Khan, Station Officer In-charge of hanumanganj that two persons are staying in Room No. 3 of Hotel Banjara and they are having contraband article "brown Sugar" for sale. After recording the said information in roznamcha the Station Officer In-charge sent constable Narayan to call two witnesses, thereafter, the arrival of witnesses namely mushtak and Kabir and also after doing the needful, the Station Officer In-charge with his force and witnesses, arrived at the said hotel.
( 3 ) ON knocking the door of Room No. 3 of Hotel Banjara two persons came out and they described their names to be ramaswamy (accused/appellant) and Abdul zabbar. The Station Officer In-charge intimated them that he is having information about the possession of contraband article with them and thereafter he gave notice under Section 50 of the Act to the accused/ appellant, however, the accused/appellant and other person Zabbar, accepted their search through said Station Officer In-charge. Accordingly, 'sahamati Patra' was prepared and thereafter Station Officer In-charge offered himself and his force for search to the accused and after it the Station Officer In-charge searched the accused/ appellant and found a notice under Section 50 of the Act from the pocket of his shirt. The Station Officer Incharge also found a polythene packet kept inside the fold of 'lungi'. The police party also seized rs. 9,000/- from a bag of the appellant and in that bag contraband article was found in a polythene. The said contraband article was suspected to be "brown Sugar" and after weighing it was found to be 1 Kg. Out of the bulk of 1 kg. contraband article, a sample of 50 grams was taken out and a panchnama in that regard was prepared. Thereafter the contraband article was seized and the appellant was arrested at the spot.
( 4 ) IT is the further case of prosecution that sealed sample of contraband article was sent for chemical examination at Neemuch where the sample was deposited on 7-1-2002. The Chemical Examiner on analysis affirmed the contraband article to be 'brown sugar' vide its report Ex. P/9, dated 22-1-2002.
( 5 ) A charge sheet was submitted and the appellant was charged under Sections 8 (c)and 21 of the Act. Needless to emhphasise, the appellant abjured his guilt and prayed for the trial. In order to bring home the charges the prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses and placed Ex. P/1 to p/24, the documents on record. The defence of accused is of false implication, however, he did not choose to examine any witness in his defence.
( 6 ) THE Special Judge on scrutiny of the evidence came to hold that the appellant did commit the offence for which he was charged and eventually convicted him and passed the sentence which I have mentioned here-inabove. Hence this appeal.
( 7 ) IN this appeal Sushri Sunita chourasiya, learned counsel for the appellant, has argued that if the entire case of prosecution is taken into consideration it is difficult to hold that the appellant committed the offence. She has further submitted that the appellant being a resident of chennai does not understand Hindi language and the entire investigation including giving notice under Section 50 of the Act etc. is in Hindi language and, therefore, it is difficult to hold that the appellant is guilty.
( 8 ) PER cont
