Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
N.Kotiswar Singh, J.
R.K. Ibungosana Singh - Appellant
Versus
Satrughan Kumar - Resopndent
Crill. Revn. No. 12 of 2012
Decided On : 19-12-2014
N.D. & P.S. Act - Discharge of Accused - Sections 9-A, 25-A, 29 & 60 - The court considered whether there was sufficient evidence to link the accused to the seized Actinad tablets and found that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against the accused. The accused was discharged from the case based on the documents produced by the accused at the time of charge hearing, which is not permissible under the law.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was charged under Sections 9-A, 25-A, 29 & 60 of the N.D. & P.S. Act for possessing and supplying Actinad Tablets containing pseudo ephedrine. The Special Judge discharged the accused, finding no material to link the accused to the seized tablets.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no evidence to link the accused to the seized tablets and held that no prima facie case had been made out against the accused.
Issues: The main issue was whether there was sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case against the accused under the N.D. & P.S. Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court cannot consider documents produced by the accused at the time of charge consideration under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. for the purpose of considering discharge of the accused. The accused has no right to produce any material at the stage of framing charge hearing under Section 227 Cr.P.C.
Final Decision: The impugned judgment and order discharging the accused was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Special Judge for reconsideration of the charge hearing in accordance with the law.
N. Kotiswar Singh, J.
1. Heard Mr. N. Brojendro, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. M.I. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The present Cril. revision petition has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 29.2.2012 passed in Special Trial (C) Case No. 23 of 2011, by which the learned Special Judge, Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substance (ND & PS) Manipur discharged the respondent accused from the case.
3. The facts in brief for the purpose of considering this revision petition may be stated as below.
That on 16.5.2011 the personnel of 31 Assam Rifles at Khudengthabi, Moreh, handed over 206000 Actinad Tablets to the office of the Narcotic Control Bureau, Regional Unit, ISKON Complex, Imphal, in presence of the witnesses without the owner of the goods for further investigation of the case. As per the complaint filed by the Assam Rifles, the said Actinad tablets packed in two packs were recovered from an unoccupied house at Seijang Village, Chandel District, Manipur. On examination of the said tablets, the batch number and date of manufacture of the tablets were ascertained and it was found that these were manufactured by M/s. Nikvin Healthcare (India) Pvt. Ltd., Baddi-Baro, Tiwals Road, Behind Govt. Timber Depot, Village-Katha, Baddi (H.P.). Since the said tablets were found to contain pseudo ephedrine which is a controlled substance, a criminal investigation was initiated by registering Case No. 19/4/NCB/IMP/Actinad/UCLO/2011 dated 16.5.2011 u/s 9-A, 25-A, 29 & 60 of the N.D. & P.S. Act. On further investigation, it was ascertained that the said Actinad Tablets were purchased from the said company by a local firm known as “Yasodha Traders”, located at Khuyathong Road, Thangal Bazar, Imphal. After ascertaining the proprietor of the said Yasodha Traders, who is the present respondent, he was arrested on 19.7.2011 in presence of witnesses.
It has been stated that on investigation, the respondent admitted that he is the proprietor of the “Yasodha Traders” and possessed drug licence issued by the Medical Directorate, Government of Manipur, and purchased the said consignment of Actinad Tablets from the manufacturer, M/s. Nikvin Healthcare (Pvt) Ltd. He also admitted that he had supplied these tablets to some unknown persons without knowing the provisions of the N.D. & P.S. Act and N.D. & P.S. (Regulation of Controlled Substance Order 1993).
The investigating authority got the said seized tablets analysed from the Forensic Science Laboratory at Pangei, which confirmed that these tablets tested positive for pseudo ephedrine, which is a controlled substance. Accordingly, a Complaint Case was filed before the Special Court, (ND & PS) Manipur under Section 9-A, 25-A, 29 & 60 of the N.D. & P.S. Act, 1985 on 25.10.2011 which was later on registered as Special Trial (C) Case No. 23 of 2011. On completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted supported by the chemical analysis report, inventory of the goods, statement made by the respondent and another witnesses and other related documents/evidences. At the time of considering of the charge filed against the respondent, the Special Judge considered whether prima facie case had been made out against the respondent as regards the findings under Section 25-A of the N.D. & P.S. Act or whether respondent had abetted and conspired as provided under Section 29 or whether he was liable under Section 60 of the N.D. & P.S. Act.
4. On consideration of the charge sheet and materials submitted by the investigating agency, the Special Judge held that there is no iota of material to link the said seized Actinad tablets to the accused and did not accept the case of the prosecution that since the batch number found in the seized Actinad tablets and those purchased by Yasodha Traders from the manufacturer bore the same number, the seized tablets belonged to the accused. The learned Judge took the view that the product with the same batch number could have been
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.
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
