IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
A. Guneshwar Sharma, J.
The State of Manipur represented by the Chief Secretary (Home) and ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Mohammad Hussain @ Thoiba and ors. - Respondents
Cril. Revision Petition No. 10 of 2021
Decided On : 03-06-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details on the drug seizure and arrests. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. grounds for discharge of the accused. (Para 8) |
| 3. prosecution's arguments on jurisdiction. (Para 10 , 14) |
| 4. analysis of trial court's errors. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. ingredients of offences established. (Para 30 , 31 , 32) |
JUDGMENT :
A. Guneshwar Sharma, J.
1. Heard Mr. M. Devananda, learned Addl. A.G. assisted by Ms. Jyotsana, learned counsel for the petitioners/State; Mr. HS. Paonam, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Lekhakumari, Advocate; Mr. L. Shashibhushan, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Kangungailui Kamei, Advocate; Mr. S. Jhalajit, learned counsel; and Mr. H. Nabakumar, learned counsel for the respondents/accused persons.
2. Vide order dated 29.04.2024 in SLP(Crl.) No. 1536 of 2024 filed by the respondent/accused No.2 herein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court desired this Court to decide the revision petition filed by the State against the discharge order as expeditiously as possible and in any case, by the end of May, 2024. Accordingly, this case was listed on 30.05.2024 for pronouncement of judgment. However, due to sudden flash flood in Manipur, there were no court sittings on 30 & 31 May, 2024 and the case is again listed on 03.06.2024, the next working day available, for pronouncement of judgment.
3. The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 397 CrPC read with Section 36 -B of the ND&PS Act, against the discharge order dated 20.01.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge (ND&PS) Thoubal in Spl. T. Case No. 12 of 2020 in connection with FIR No. 94(8) 2019 TBL Police Station under Sections 22 (c)/29/60(3) ND&PS Act added Section 468 IPC and in the ex-parte interim prayed U/S 482 of the CrPC read with Section 36 -B of the ND&PS Act for issuing a warrant directing the accused be arrested by any Sub-ordinate Court and lodge them to prison pending the disposal of the above referred revision petition. The respondent Nos. 1 to 9 are accused Nos. 1 to 9 before the court below. The point for determination in the present case is whether the ingredients for the offences punishable under Sections 22 (c)/29/60(3) ND&PS Act and Section 468 IPC are made out against the accused persons or not.
4. The brief facts of the case are that on 24.08.2019 at about 1:10 am, the Thoubal District Police with the assistance of the members of Phoudel Keirambi Youths Club, Phoudel Keirambi intercepted one Tata Di vehicle bearing Regd. No. MN06LA-2847 at IVR (Inter Village Road) of Phoudel Keirambi Mathak Leikai under the jurisdiction of Yairipok PS and the driver was identified as Mohammad Hussain (accused No. 1) and some suspected illegal items were recovered from the said vehicle, around 40,000 (forty thousand) Nos. of suspected WY tablets. The accused No. 1 was arrested by observing all the formalities. From the disclosure of the accused No. 1, one international drug smuggler, namely Mr. Kyaw Kyaw Naing @ Abdul Rahim (accused No. 2) was arrested from Imphal International Airport, Tulihal and recovered from him Indian Currency Rs. 60,000/- in cash, 15 Nos. of 100 denomination US Dollars, one 1000 Kyat, one 5000 kyat, one 100 kyat, one 20 kyat, one 20 taka, one passport being No. SMB110ED with Burma SIM card and one Samsung Duos being No. 6909503887, two pint out e-ticket, one boarding pass issued in the name of Niang Kyaw Yaw being Flight No. 6E 939, one Indian E-VISA being ID No. 1002v0851519.
5. Again, from the disclosure of accused No. 1, one person namely Md. Ayub Khan (accused No. 3) was arrested from Yairipok Lamkhai on 24.08.2019 at about 1:40 pm and seized one Maruti 800 being Regd. No. DL2CAF-0821 and two mobile handsets, one Nokia being Mobile No. 9874512487 and one Redmi mobile phone handset being No. 9366342176. Further, from the disclosure of accused No. 1, arrested one Md. Abdul Rajaque (accused No. 4) from Yairipok Lamkhai on 24.08.2019 at around 2:15 pm as he was also accomplice with accused No. 1 in the transport of narcotic substance. As s
Umar Abdul Sakoor Sorathia v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau
State of T.N. v. R. Soundirarasu
Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohd. Maqbool Magrey
Krishna Kanwar v. State of Rajasthan
State of Haryana v. Jarnail Singh
Kallu Khan v. State of Rajasthan
Golak Patel Volkart Ltd. V. Dundayya Gurushiddaiah Hiremath
Sharif Ahmed and Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.
Boota Singh v. State of Haryana
Vishnu Kumar Shukla and Ors. vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.
In narcotic drug cases, subsequent procedural non-compliance and shifting of occurrence location do not preclude ongoing trials; mandatory provisions of NDPS Act must be adhered to but are contextual....
wherever a Court comes to conclusion that the process of Court is being abuses, the Court would be justified in refusing to proceed further and refused the party from pursuing the remedy in law.
Strict compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 42(1) and 42(2) of the NDPS Act is required, and the prosecution must establish the accused's conscious possession of the contraband.
The prosecution established the appellant's conscious possession of narcotics, validating the conviction despite procedural non-compliance, as substantial evidence supported the case.
Criminal proceedings require substantial, corroborative evidence, and charge framing must reflect judicial application rather than mechanical adherence to procedural norms under the NDPS Act.
The prosecution's failure to follow mandatory procedures for search and seizure under the NDPS Act vitiated the trial, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
The prosecution must comply with mandatory procedural requirements in drug cases, failing which foundational facts required to establish guilt cannot be met, leading to acquittal.
The recovery of contraband from a public place does not require compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act, and the presumption of conscious possession under Section 54 places the burden of proof on ....
Non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act vitiates the conviction, especially where the prosecution relies solely on police testimony without corroboration from independent witness....
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.