Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
A.K. Shrivastava, J.
Hajarilal
Vs.
State of M.P.
Cri. Appeal No. 291 of 2002
Decided On: 04.12.2004
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Conviction under section 8 read with section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - [8, 21] - The court discussed the compliance of section 50 of the Act, possession of the contraband article, and the evidence presented. The court highlighted the importance of proving possession and the lack of evidence linking the appellant to the contraband article, ultimately leading to the setting aside of the conviction.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant appealed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence under section 8 read with section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, after being found in possession of contraband article and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and a fine.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented did not prove that the appellant was in possession of the contraband article, highlighting discrepancies in witness statements and the lack of evidence linking the appellant to the impugned bag.
Issues: The key issue was whether the appellant was in possession of the contraband article, and the compliance with section 50 of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of proving possession and highlighted the lack of evidence linking the appellant to the contraband article, ultimately leading to the setting aside of the conviction.
Final Decision: The appeal succeeded, and the conviction of the appellant was set aside, leading to his immediate release from jail.
A.K. Shrivastava, J.
1. The appellant has knocked the door of this Court by preferring an appeal under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 assailing judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25-1-2002 passed by Special Judge (N.D.P.S.), Bhopal in Special Case No. 17 of 2001 convicting appellant under section 8 read with section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'Act') and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment of ten years and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- .
2. Facts shorn of unnecessary details lie in narrow compass. On 18-2-2001 an informant gave information at Police Station Hanumanganj that three persons are standing nearby betel shop of one Soni which is located behind Bus Stand. According to the informant these persons came from Rajasthan and are carrying Brown Sugar. This information was reduced in writing in Roznamcha and requisite information as per the law was sent to C.S.P. Thereafter Station Officer Incharge proceeded to the spot and found that three persons were standing nearby betel shop and on being asked their names by Station Officer Incharge they named themselves to be Hajarilal, Babulal and Gulab Chand. Station Officer Incharge gave notice that he is having information that they are having contraband article and, therefore, they may give their search either before Gazetted Officer or Magistrate or they may allow their search by the Station Officer Incharge himself. Those three persons accepted to give their search to the Station Officer Incharge. When the search of appellant was made, beneath his undergarments which was kept in a bag, contraband article appearing to be Brown Sugar was found. Thereafter one Aamir Khan was called and contraband article was weighed and which was found to be 675 grams. One more packet was also seized in which 170 grams of Brown Sugar was found. In total 845 grams Brown Sugar was seized. Out of the bulk of contraband article, two samples of 50 grams each were taken out and they were sealed at the spot.
3. After completing requisite formalities the bulk of contraband article was kept in Malkhana and the samples were sent for examination in the Laboratory at Neemuch. According to the report of Chemical Examiner, contraband articles was found to be heroin (Diacetyl Morphine).
4. The investigating agency thereafter submitted the charge-sheet in the Special Court which on examining the charge-sheet, framed charge punishable under section 8 read with section 21 of the Act. Needless to emphasise appellant refuted the charge and requested for trial.
5. In order to prove the charge prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses and placed Exs. P-I to P-13, the documents on record.
6. The trial Court after appreciating and marshalling the evidence came to hold that the prosecution has successfully proved the charge and eventually convicted the appellant and passed the sentence, which I have mentioned hereinabove. Hence this appeal.
7. I have heard Shri. A. L. Ahirwar, Learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Learned Counsel for the respondent-State.
8. In the present case a notice under section 50 of the Act to search the appellant was given which is Ex. P-3. On going through this document it is revealed the Station Officer Incharge Saleem Khan (P.W. 9), who gave notice has specifically stated that in compliance to section 50 of the Act, before taking search of appellant's bag which was kept nearby him, he informed him that it is his right to be searched either before him or before Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. Thus there is compliance of section 50 of the Act.
9. The question is whether the bag in which contraband article was kept was being possessed by the appellant or not. In this regard it would be fruitful to see the evidence of Station Officer Incharge Saleem Khan (P.W. 9) who after giving notice under section 50 of Act searched the bag of appellant. In his testimony he has specifically said that on t
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
