MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT JABALBUR BENCH
A.K.Shrivastava, JJ.
Arti Sen - Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh - Respondent
Cr.A. No. 1150-2010
Decided On : 16-05-2013
NDPS Act - Conviction under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C) - Summary of Acts and Sections: NDPS Act, 1985 - Section 8(c), Section 20(b)(ii)(C), Section 2(iii)(b), Section 50(4), Section 100(3) - The court discussed the provisions of the NDPS Act, including the definition of ganja, the requirements for seizure and custody of contraband articles, and the procedure for search of a female accused. The interpretation of these provisions influenced the court's decision to acquit the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under the NDPS Act for illegal possession of ganja found in her house. The prosecution's case was based on the seizure of ganja from the appellant's house, but the defense argued that the rooms where the ganja was found were rented out to tenants who were in possession of the contraband.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the substance seized was ganja as defined in the NDPS Act. It also noted discrepancies in the evidence regarding the custody and condition of the seized contraband. The court accepted the defense's argument that the rooms where the ganja was found were rented out to tenants, and the appellant was not in possession of the contraband. Additionally, the court found non-compliance with the mandatory search procedure for a female accused.
Issues: The key issues included the identification of the seized substance as ganja, the possession of the premises where the contraband was found, and the compliance with search procedures for a female accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of strict compliance with the NDPS Act's provisions, especially in cases involving serious offenses. It also highlighted the need for a strict degree of proof before convicting an accused under the Act.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant from all charges.
JUDGMENT
Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.06.2010 passed by learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act) Damoh in Special Case No. 7/2009 convicting the appellant under Section 8(c) read with Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short "NDPS Act") and thereby sentencing her to suffer 10 years RI and fine of Rs. 1 Lac, in default further RI for one year, the appellant has taken shelter of this Court by preferring this appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. As per the case of prosecution at the Police Station Tendukheda which comes within the territorial jurisdiction of Damoh Shri I. P. Mandvi, Dy. S.P. / SDO(P) was posted. On the said date, he was informed telephonically by an informant that appellant is illegally carrying the business of ganja in her house situated at Ward No. l, Hanuman Mandir Road, Tendukheda. Upon receiving such information, a panchnama was prepared in the presence of Constable Mahesh Kumar and driver A.S.I. Vijay Charar at 14.50 hours. Thereafter the said information was forwarded to the Senior Police Officers by endorsing relevant endorsement in the Roznamcha sanha No. 46 at 14.25 hours. The Tehsildar Tendukheda was also informed and was requested to arrive at Police Station.
3. It is the further case of prosecution that the police control room of Damoh was also informed to send a Lady Constable and the said fact was also endorsed in the Roznamcha sanha N. 462 at 14.30 hours. Thereafter, a duty certificate was given to Constable Rama Shankar directing him to bring the balance and weights and other necessary articles to seal the contraband article, who brought all these articles and necessary endorsement was made in Roznamcha sanha in that regard. The lady constable also reported her arrival in the police station Tendukheda. The police party alongwith independent witnesses proceeded towards the house of appellant at about 4.00 p.m. The factum of keeping illegal possession of ganja by the appellant as informed by the informant was told to her and after obtaining her consent, her house was searched. A panchnama of consent given by the appellant was also prepared. Prior to the search of the house of appellant her personal search was also made by the lady constable Harsiddhi. Thereafter house of appellant was searched in presence of the independent witnesses and the Tehsildar.
4. It is the specific case of the prosecution that when the house of appellant was searched, in 7 gunny bags and in one tin container, ganja was found inside the two rooms of the house of appellant and which was identified by smelling and rubbing. A panchnama of the seizure was also prepared. The physical verification of the balance and weight was made and a panchnama in that regard was prepared and thereafter the ganja was weighed and it was found to be two quintals and 200 Kg. From each gunny bag as well as from tin container, one sample of ganja weighing 20 gms (in total 8 samples) was collected in presence of witnesses and all the packets of the samples were sealed. The appellant was arrested and was brought to the police station where F.I.R was registered and the bulk of ganja which was seized was kept in malkhana. Relevant entry in the malkhana register was also made.
5. After the investigation was over, a charge - sheet was submitted before the learned Special Court who framed charges punishable under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b) (ii) (C) of NDPS Act. Needless to say that the appellant denied the charges and requested for the trial.
6. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses and also proved certain documents on record. The defence of the appellant is that since April 2009 she has given two rooms of her house to Mukesh Sahu and K.D. Rajput on rental basis, who are possessing these two rooms as godown to store Bidi, tobacco, Tendu leaves etc. They also inserted the locks
Jitendra and another Vs. State of M.P. (2004) 10 SCC 562 (Para 10)
Ashok alias Dangra Jaiswal Vs. State of M.P. AIR 2011 SC 1335 (Para 10)
State of Rajasthan Vs. Gurmail Singh (2005) 3 SCC 59 (Para 10)
Valsala Vs. State of M.P. 2002 (2) MPLJ 117 (Para 10)
Ambaram Vs. State of M.P. 2007 (I) MPWN 34 (Para 10)
Bhadar V State of M.P. 2009 (1) MPWN 58 (Para 10)
Jagdish Vs. State of M.P. AIR 2007 SC 369 (Para 12)
Ritesh Chakravarti Vs. State of M.P. (2006) 12 SCC 321 (Para 12)
Harish Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2010(1) MPHT 90 (Para 12)
State of Rajasthan V Tara Singh (2011) 11 SCC 559 (Para 20)
State of Punjab Vs. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 (Para 23)
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.