Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Anand Pathak, J.
Gopal Krishna Gautam alias Pandit v. State of M.P. & Another
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 31747 of 2021(Gwalior);
Decided on 28.7.2021
(1) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 -- Ss. 53, 53A and 67-- enquiry u/s. 67 is a stage prior to investigation as referred in S. 53 -- is distinct from enquiry u/s. 53A, which is during course of investigation of offences. [Para 13]
(2) Words and Phrases -- presumption -- is a rule of evidence -- essentially invoked to plug certain gaps or remove lacuna in evidence. AIR 1962 SC 1052, (2000) 8 SCC 382 and (1997) 1 SCC 133 followed. [Para 16]
(3) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 -- Ss. 35, 54 and 66 -- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 -- Ss. 7, 11 and 20 -- Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (repealed) -- S. 21 -- Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 -- S. 43E -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 -- Ss.118, 119, 137, 138 and 139 -- Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 304B -- Evidence Act, 1872 -- Ss. 79 to 90A, 111A, 113A, 113B, 114 and 114A-- presumption of culpability -- principle of reverse burden -- Ss. 35, 54 and 66 of NDPS Act; Ss. 7,11 and 20 of PC Act; S. 21 of TADA Act; S. 43E of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act; Ss. 118, 119, 137, 138 and 139 of NIAct; S. 304B of IPC; Ss.79 to 90A, 111A,113A, 113B, 114 and 114A of Evidence Act -- provide for presumption of guilt against accused. [Para 17]
(4) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 -- Ss. 35 and 54 -- presumption of culpability -- Ss. 35 and 54 raise presumptions with regard to culpable mental state of accused -- carry reverse burden of proof on accused. (2008) 16 SCC 417, (2018) 17 SCC 627 and 2020 (3) JLJ 543 (SC) followed. [Para 18]
(5) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 -- Ss. 35 and 54 -- standard of proof -- is "preponderance of probability" at least -- "presumption of culpable mental state" as per S. 35 and "presumption from possession of illicit articles" as per S. 54(b) are to be countered by accused on touch stone of preponderance of probability at least. [Para 22]
(6) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 -- Ss. 35 and 54 -- Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 27-- burden of proof -- initial burden is on prosecution -- when it stands satisfied, legal burden would shift to accused -- accused cannot wriggle out from such liability -- trial Court must weigh this aspect of "presumptions"while appreciating evidence -- implications of S. 27of Evidence Act regarding discovery of information and/or recovery of articles/documents/equipments are still available to trial Court to reach truth. [Para 23]
(7) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 -- Ss. 35 and 54 -- Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 27 -- burden of proof - prosecution establishes ownership of some part of land of accused, some part of land taken on lease, use of irrigation pump-setof accused for irrigating opium crop and such other related proofs -- initial burden of prosecution would be satisfied -- legal burden would shift to accused -- statements of other owners or occupants of land of same survey number, whether they are accused or not, as well as seizure of crop also have material bearing -- discovery of information u/s. 27 of Evidence Act is also to be seen with all these assorted pieces of evidence. [Paras 24 & 25]
(8) Criminal P.C. 1973 -- S. 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 -- Ss. 8/18(c), 29, 67, 53 and 53A- bail -- prosecution on basis of applicant's statement u/s. 67 of NDPS Act along with seizure of crop and statements of some occupants about his involvement as leaseholder -- aged 52 years -- first time offender -- land owner and family man -- chance of absconding remote -- complaint u/s. 36A of NDPS Act already filed by respondent -- many witnesses official witnesses -- chance of tampering with witnesses/evidence remote -- already suffered more than 3 months of pretrial detention -- expressed intention to perform community service -- chance be given to reform -- bail allowed subject to conditions. 2020 (3) MPLJ (Cri.) 247 relied on. [Para 27
¼1½ Lokid vkS"kf/k vkSj eu% ÁHkkoh inkFkZ vf/kfu;e] 1985 & /kkjk 53] 53d rFkk 67 & /kkjk 67 ds v/khu tkap /kkjk 53 esa ;Fkk fufnZ"V vUos"k.k ls iwoZ dk ÁØe gS & /kkjk 53d ds v/khu tkap ls lqfHkUu gS] tks vijk/kksa ds vUos"k.k ds nkSjku gksrh gSA ¼iSjk 13½
¼2½ 'kCn rFkk okD;ka'k & mi/kkj.kk & lk{; dk fu;e gS & lkjr% lk{; esa dfri; fjfDr;ka Hkjus ;k dfr;ka gVkus ds fy, vkJ; fy;k tkrk gSA , vkb vkj 1962 ,l lh 1052] ¼2008½ 8 ,l lh lh 382 rFkk ¼1997½ 1 ,l lh lh 133 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 16½
¼3½ Lokid vkS"kf/k vkSj eu% ÁHkkoh inkFkZ vf/kfu;e] 1985 & /kkjk 35] 54 rFkk 66 & Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1988 & /kkjk 7] 11 rFkk 20 & vkradoknh vkSj fo/oaldkjh fØ;kdyki ¼fuokj.k½ vf/kfu;e] 1987 ¼fujflr½ & /kkjk 21 & fof/k fo#) fØ;kdyki fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1967 & 43M+ & ijØkE; fy[kr vf/kfu;e] 1881 & /kkjk 118] 119] 137] 138 rFkk 139 & naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 304[k & lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 & /kkjk 79 ls 90d] 111d] 113d] 113[k] 114 rFkk 114d & vkijkf/kd ekfuld n'kk dh mi/kkj.kk & Áfrykse Hkkj dk fl)kar & Lokid vkS"kf/k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 35] 54 vkSj 66] Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vfèkfu;e dh /kkjk 7] 11 vkSj 20] VkMk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 21] fof/kfo#) fØ;kdyki fuokj.k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 43M] ijØkE; fy[kr vfèkfu;e dh /kkjk 118] 119] 137] 138 vkSj 139] naM lafgrk dh /kkjk 304[k] lk{; vf/kfu;e dh èkkjk 79 ls 90d] 111d] 113d] 113[k] 114 vkSj 114d & vfHk;qDr ds fo#) nksf"kr dh mi/kkj.kk micaf/kr dh xbZ gSA ¼iSjk 16½
¼4½ Lokid vkS"kf/k vkSj eu% ÁHkkoh inkFkZ vf/kfu;e] 1985 & /kkjk 35 rFkk 54 & vkijkf/kd ekufld n'kk dh mi/kkj.kk & /kkjk 35 rFkk 54 esa vfHk;qDr dh vkijkf/kd ekufld n'kk dh mi/kkj.kk gS & vfHk;qDr ij lcwr dk Áfrykse Hkkj gSA ¼2008½ 16 ,l lh lh 417] ¼2018½ 17 ,l lh lh 627 rFkk 2020 ¼3½ ts ,y ts 543 ¼mPpre U;k;ky;½ vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 18½
¼5½ Lokid vkS"kf/k vkSj eu% ÁHkkoh inkFkZ vf/kfu;e] 1985 & /kkjk 35 rFkk 54 & lcwr dk ekud & de&ls&de ^^vf/klaHkkO;rk dh Ácyrk** gS & /kkjk 35 ds vuqlkj ^^vkijkf/kd ekufld n'kk dh mi/kkj.kk** rFkk /kkjk 54¼[k½ ds vuqlkj ^^voS/k oLrqvksa ds dCts ls mi/kkj.kk** dk [kaMu vfHk;qDr }kjk] de&ls&de vf/klaHkkO;rk dh Ácyrk dh dlkSVh ij fd;k tkuk gksrk gSA ¼iSjk 22½
¼6½ Lokid vkS"kf/k vkSj eu% ÁHkkoh inkFkZ vf/kfu;e] 1985 & /kkjk 35 rFkk 54 & lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 & /kkjk 27 & lcwr dk Hkkj & vkjafHkd Hkkjr vfHk;kstui{k ij gksrk gS & mldh iwfrZ gksus ij fof/kd Hkkj vfHk;qDr ij varfjr gks tk,xk & vfHk;qDr ,sls nkf;Ro ls cp ds ugha fudy ldrk & lk{; dk ewY;kadu djrs le; fopkj.k U;k;ky; dks ^^mi/kkj.kkvksa** ds bl igyw ij vo'; /;ku nsuk pkfg, & lR; ij igqapus ds fy, fopkj.k U;k;ky; dks tkudkjh ds irk pyus vkSj@vFkok oLrqvksa@nLrkostksa@midj.kksa dh cjkenxh ds laca/k esa lk{; vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 27 dh foo{kk,a fQj Hkh miyCèkA ¼iSjk 23½
¼7½ Lokid vkS"kf/k vkSj eu% ÁHkkoh inkFkZ vf/kfu;e] 1985 & /kkjk 35 rFkk 54 & lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 & /kkjk 27 & lcwr dk Hkkj & vfHk;kstui{k }kjk vfHk;qDr dh Hkwfe ds dqN Hkkx dk vkSj iV~Vs ij yh xbZ Hkwfe ds dqN Hkkx dk LokfeRo] vQhe dh Qly dh flapkbZ ds fy, vfHk;qDr ds flapkbZ iai dk mi;ksx rFkk blh Ádkj ds vU; lacaf/kr lcwr fl) & vfHk;kstui{k ds vkjafHkd Hkkj dh iwfrZ gks tk,xh & fof/kd Hkkj vfHk;qDr ij varfjr gks tk,xk & vU; Lokfe;ksa ;k mlh losZ{k.k la[;kad dh Hkwfe ds vf/kHkksfx;ksa ds] pkgs og vfHk;qDr gksa ;k ugha] dFkuksa ds lkFk gh Qly dk vf/kxzg.k Hkh rkfRod & lk{; ds bu fofHkUu vo;oksa ds lkFk gh lk{; vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 27 ds v/khu irk pyh tkudkjh Hkh ns[kh tkuk gksrh gSA ¼iSjk 23½
¼8½ naM ÁfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 439 & Lokid vkS"kf/k vkSj eu% ÁHkkoh inkFkZ vf/kfu;e] 1985 & /kkjk 8@18¼x½] 29] 67] 53 rFkk 53d & tekur & Lokid vkS"kf/k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 67 ds v/khu vkosnd ds dFku ds lkFk gh Qly ds vf/kxzg.k rFkk iV~Vk/kkjh ds :i esa vkosnd ds varoZfyr gksus ds ckjs esa dqN vf/kHkksfx;ksa ds dFkuksa ds vk/kkj ij vkosnd dk vfHk;kstu & 52 o"kZ o; dk & ÁFke ckj vijk/kh & HkwfeLokeh vkSj x`gLFk & Qjkj gksus dh laHkkouk vYi & ÁR;FkhZ }kjk Lokid vkS"kf/k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 36d ds v/khu ifjokn ÁLrqr fd;k tk pqdk & vusd lk{kh in/kkjh lk{kh & lkf{k;ksa@Lkk{; ls NsM+NkM+ dh laHkkouk vYi & 3 ekl dk fopkj.k & iwoZ fujks/k Hkksx fy;k & lkeqnkf;d lsok djus dk vk'k; O;Dr fd;k & lq/kkj dk volj fn;k tk, & 'krksZ ds v/;/khu tekur eatwjA 2020 ¼3½ ,e ih ,y ts ¼fØŒ½ 247 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 27½
ORDER
1. The applicant has filed this first bail application u/S.439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of bail. Applicant has been arrested on 10.4.2021 by Police Station Central Bureau of Narcotics, District Gwalior in connection with Crime No.02/2021 registered for offence punishable under sections 8/18(c) and 29 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NDPS Act’).
2. It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that he is suffering confinement since 10.4.2021 and private complaint has been filed by the department, therefore, now chance of tampering with evidence or witnesses is remote. Learned counsel referred the statement of prime accused Laxminarayan alias Lachchhi dated 8.3.2021 and 9.3. 2021 as well as of Ranvir Singh dated 8.3.2021 and 9.3.2021 who are allegedly prime accused in the case but they did not refer name of the present applicant. They referred names of other persons who were allegedly involved in illegal cultivation of opium. Statement of applicant was recorded later on and on the basis of his statement, he has been arrested.
3. It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that only on the basis of his statement taken by respondent authority purportedly under section 67 of NDPS Act he has been implicated. Scope of section 67 vis-a-vis section 53 and 53-A of NDPS Act, has been considered by recent judgment of the apex Court in the case of Tofan Singh v. State of Tamilnadu [(2021) 14 SCC 1] wherein it has been held that statement under section 67 of NDPS Act can only be construed as confessional statement as per section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act before the police officer and therefore, on such statement accused cannot be convicted.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant Shri Vijay Dutt Sharma referred the statement of applicant to submit that the land in question (Khasra No.87) wherein alleged illegal cultivation of opium carried out is a vast stretch of land in which some part of the land has been purchased by him around 10 years back in which many persons are owners of the said land including his two brothers and he was not cultivating the opium over his land. It was the land under the possession of Munni Devi W/o late Radha Govind and many other persons, therefore, he cannot be fastened with the liability. He further referred Annexure A/7 filed with the complaint under section 36-A of NDPS Act by respondent department in which description of Khasra No.87 through tentative map has been depicted in which land of applicant appears to be far distant than the land where alleged cultivation took place. Since charge-sheet/complaint under section 36-A of NDPS Act has already been filed and applicant does not bear any criminal record, therefore, chance of tampering with evidence is remote.
5. He fairly admits on query that sections 35, 54 and 66 of NDPS Act raise certain presumptions against accused but it cannot run to the detriment of the accused because stringent provisions are made under NDPS Act and therefore, as per the mandate of the State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh [(1999) 6 SCC 172] safeguards provided in NDPS Act are to be scrupulously followed.
6. Applicant undertakes to perform community service to purge his misdeeds, if any and will use his agriculture field for plantation of saplings as part of community service and to serve National/Environmental/ Social cause voluntarily, if bail is granted as per the spirit of judgment rendered in the case of Sunita Gandharva v. State of M.P., in 2020 (3) MPLJ(Cri.) 247 by this Court.
7. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/State opposed the prayer and prayed for dismissal of the bail application. According to learned counsel on the basis of documents made available at the instance of applicant, it appears that he was owner of the land in question. He prayed for dismissal of bail application.
8. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/CBN Shri Newaskar opposed the prayer and submitted
Point of Law : NDPS Act – Search and seizer of charas – Grant of Bail - Petitioner has already suffered more than 11 months of incarceration which amounts to pretrial detention.
The court established that the right to personal liberty and a speedy trial can override statutory restrictions on bail under the NDPS Act.
The court established that personal liberty and the right to a speedy trial can override statutory restrictions on bail under the NDPS Act when evidence is insufficient.
Bail denied in NDPS commercial quantity case as twin conditions under Section 37 unsatisfied; presumptions of culpable mental state and possession under Sections 35 & 54 not rebutted by accused.
The court established that the lack of a defined quantity for the cultivation of opium poppy under the NDPS Act allows for the possibility of bail, as the restrictions of Section 37 do not apply in s....
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
