Back
2010 Supreme(MP) 1014
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT JABALBUR BENCH
I.S.Shrivastava, J.
Shankar Lal - Appellant
Versus
State of M.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 215 of 2006
Decided On : 19-05-2010
For the Appellant:Shri A.K. Saraswat, Advocate., For the Respondent/State: Shri Deepak Rawal, G. A.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove conscious and exclusive possession of the accused, compliance with statutory provisions, and the production of seized articles as crucial factors influencing the decision.
Headnote:
N.D.P.S. Act - Conviction under various sections - 8/18(b), 25(a), 8/15(c) - Summary of Acts and Sections: N.D.P.S. Act, Section 8, Section 18, Section 25, Section 15 - The court discussed the compliance of Section 52-A of the N.D.P.S. Act, the production of seized property at the time of evidence, and the exclusive possession of the appellant over the room from where the contraband articles were seized. The court emphasized the importance of proving conscious and exclusive possession of the accused, compliance with statutory provisions, and the production of seized articles as crucial factors influencing the decision.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under various sections of the N.D.P.S. Act based on the seizure of contraband articles from a rented room. The appellant claimed false implication, citing the room's rental to another person and lack of evidence proving his possession of the seized property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the exclusive possession of the appellant over the room where the contraband articles were seized. It also noted non-compliance with statutory provisions and the lack of production of seized articles at the time of evidence.
Issues: The issues revolved around the appellant's alleged possession of the seized property, compliance with statutory provisions, and the production of seized articles during the trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of proving conscious and exclusive possession of the accused, compliance with statutory provisions, and the production of seized articles as crucial factors influencing the decision.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted from the charges under Section 8/18(b), 8/15(c), and Section 25-A of the N.D.P.S. Act.
JUDGMENT :
This appeal under Section 374 of the Cr. P.C. has been preferred by the appellant Shankarlal being aggrieved by the judgment dated 07.01.2006 passed by the Court of Shri Jaswant Singh Kshtriya, Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), Mandsaur in Special S.T. No. 03/2003 by which the appellant Shankarlal has been convicted under Section 8/18/(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 15 years and fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- and under Section 25 (a) of the N.D.P.S. Act sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and under Section 8/15(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I. for 3 years, 2 years and 2 years respectively.
2. According to the prosecution case, on 03.08.2002 Shri Ajay Singh Rathore, Sub Inspector, Police Station Kotwali, Mandsaur, District Mandsaur, on the information of the informer that Mahesh Ratnawat, who is doing the business of ready made cloth in the name of Manglam Dresses is busy in his house "Sahyog Sadan" and selling chemical and powder being used for the preparation of Opium and Heroin. Mahesh and his father Shankarlal are going to some place with chemical powder and Opium. Therefore, raid party was arranged and the party reached the house of accused. On call, Mahesh was found present there and when he was asked to come out of the house, then he went inside the house and ran away from the back door. On the second call his father Shankarlal came out of the house and told that Mahesh has gone somewhere from the back door. Shankarlal on inquiry told that this is his house and he is residing with his son Mahesh. Thereafter he was apprised with the information of the informer and after obtaining his due consent and after his search by the police and after order of the police party Shankarlal opened the lock of the room before the witnesses. During search of the room in a blue plastic cane of 50 litre capacity 2 polythene bags containing Opium were found which contained 15-15 kg. Opium, In a black colour bag 11 kg. Opium was found. Thereafter two samples of 30 gm. each was collected after mixing of the Opium and the samples and the remaining bulk quantity was duly sealed and marked as A, A1 & A2. Thereafter on further search in a blue colour drum a powder in the granule shape was found in 5 polythenes which were contained 5 kg. powder on which qualizan fine chemical and Allononium chloride was written was found, hence 2 samples of 30gm. were prepared from one packet and marked as B1, B2, and the remaining quantity was kept in the drum and it was marked as B and duly sealed. On checking 7 canes of 50 litre each were found containing liquid acetic anhydride, hence thereafter 40 samples of acetic anhydride were prepared and marked as article C1, C2, D1, D2, E1, E2, F1, F2, G1, G2, H1,H2, andI-1,I-2, and bulk quantity was sealed and marked as C,D,E,F,G,H, & I. All the packets were duly sealed.
3. Two cartons were also found in their godown which contained 14 and 16 bottles of Acetile Chloride and in the third carton a sealed bottle of solvent ether was found, hence samples of two bottles were prepared and the cartons were marked as article J, J-1, J-2, article K, K1, K2 and article L, L1, L2. In the same godown on checking of 26 gunny bags black poppy seeds mixed with poppy husk were found and two samples of 250 gm. were prepared and marked as M1, M2 and they were duly sealed.
4. On further search cash Rs. 41,000/- in the shape of Rs. 500/- note was seized by the police and after completing investigation Crime No. 457/2003 was registered at the police station. The seized property was deposited in the Malkhana of the Police Station and challan was filed against Shankarlal declaring Co-accused Mahesh as absconding. After trial the appellant was convicted as mentioned above.
5. It has been argued by the appellant that he has been falsely implicated
