Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
S. P. Khare, J.
PRAKASH PAWAR - Petitioner
Vs.
STATE OF M. P. - Respondent
Cri. A. No. 2561 of 2000
Decided On : 18-03-2002
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Possession - 20(b)(i) - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the evidence related to the possession of ganja by the accused persons and the legal principles of possession under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The court referred to section 35 of the Act and the burden of proof on the accused to establish their lack of knowledge of the contraband. The court also cited relevant case law to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The accused were found in possession of 140 kgs. of ganja in a consignment at a Parcel Office, leading to their conviction under section 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused were in unlawful possession of the ganja based on the evidence presented, including confessional statements, and upheld their conviction.
Issues: The main issue was whether the accused were in possession of the ganja found in the consignment at the Parcel Office.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence of the accused persons' presence at the Parcel Office to take delivery of the consignment, the confessional statements, and the legal principles of possession under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 to establish their guilt.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence of fine was reduced from Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- for each of the appellants.
JUDGMENT :
Appellants Prakash and Ashok have been convicted under section 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/- each.
2. The prosecution case is that a consignment containing 22 boxes was despatched on 18-11-1998 from Warangal to Jabalpur as per Railway Receipt No. 226673 (Ex.P-29-C) and it arrived at Jabalpur on 19-11-1998. The name of the consignee shown in the RR was - "Ramkrishna Trading Company", a fictitious firm. Nawab Khan (P.W. 8), a constable of the Railway Protection Force suspected on 22-11-1998 that the actual content in these boxes was something other than the eggs which were on the top layer. He gave instructions to the Parcel Clerk as per Ex. P-15-B to inform the RPF when anyone comes to take delivery of the parcel. On 28-11-1998 accused Prakash and Ashok came to the Parcel Office with the Railway Receipt, a photocopy of which is Ex. P-29-C, to take delivery of the consignment. M. P. Singh (P.W. 3), Parcel Clerk, informed the RPF Constable regarding the persons who have come to take the delivery. Nawab Khan (P.W. 8) reached the Parcel Office with M. K. Sisodia (P.W. 2), Sub-Inspector of the RPF who opened the consignment in the presence of the accused persons and it was found that it contained ganja under the first layer of the eggs. He took the accused persons in custody and detained them at RPF office. He wrote letter Ex.P-2 to the District Excise Officer, Jabalpur informing him about the state of affairs and requesting to conduct further investigation. On 29-11-1998 N. C. Jain (P.W.9), Additional DEO and Ajay Shanker Tiwari (P.W. 11), Excise Sub Inspector reached the Parcel Office and searched the boxes in the presence of the accused persons. There was 140 Kgs. of ganja in those boxes. It was seized as per seizure memo Ex. P-8 and the accused persons were arrested. The samples of the ganja were taken and duly sealed. The information relating to the search and seizure was sent to the District Excise Officer. The samples were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar and as per report Ex. P-23 it was confirmed that the commodity which was seized was ganja.
3. The accused persons pleaded not guilty. They have denied that they went to the Parcel Office to take delivery of the parcel. According to them they had gone to Railway Station to see off one of the guests of accused Prakash and as they could not buy plateform ticket there was exchange of some hot words between them and Nawab Khan (P.W. 8) and he has got them falsely implicated in this crime.
4. The trial court after appreciation of the evidence on record has held that the accused persons had gone to the parcel office with the Railway Receipt endorsed in the name of accused Prakash and thus they were the persons who were in possession of ganja. It has been held that the procedural requirements of the Act were fully complied with. On these findings the accused have been convicted and sentenced as stated at the outset.
5. In this appeal it has been argued that the finding of the trial court that the accused persons were in possession of ganja is not correct. It is pointed out that they have nothing to do with the ganja found in the Parcel office.
6. The evidence on record has been scanned by this Court. There is overwhelming evidence to hold that 140 kgs. of ganja was found in the consignment in the Parcel office. That finding of the trial Court is indisputable. The only point to be decided is whether the accused persons were in 'possession' of this ganja.
7. M. P. Singh (P.W. 3) is the Parcel Clerk. He has deposed that 22 boxes had come by Tirupati Express and they were stored in the parcel office. He was asked by Nawab Khan, RPF Constable (P.W. 8) to give information to him if anyone comes to take delivery of these boxes. He has further deposed that on 28-11-1998 accused Prakash and Ashok had come
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.
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
