MC (Cril.A.) No. 20 of 2021

Page 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR

AT IMPHAL

MC (Cril. A.) No. 20 of 2021

Ref: Cril. Appeal No. 2 of 2021

Lalremkima, aged about 30 years, S/o (L) Soitinkhup of Moreh Super Market

Ward No. 2, P.O. & P.S. Moreh, District-Tengnoupal, Manipur-795131.

……Applicant

Sougaijam Robindro Singh, aged about 29 years, S/o S. Ibotombi Sing of

Kakching Wairi Thongam Leikai, P.O., P.S. & District-Kakching, at present

Moreh Super Market Ward No. 2, P.O & P.S. Moreh, District-Tengnoupal,

Manipur-795131. …. Accused person

-Versus-

The State of Manipur, through Officer-in-Charge NAB Police Station, Old

Nambulane, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

......Respondent.

B E F

O R

E

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH

For the petitioner

:

Mr. H. Kenajit, Advocate

For the respondent

:

Mr. Y. Ashang, PP

Date of Hearing

:

11.04.2022

Date of Order

:

23.05.2022.

ORDER

[1]

Heard Mr. H. Kenajit, learned counsel appearing for the applicant and

Mr. Y. Ashang, learned PP appearing for the respondent.

[2]

The present application had been filed on behalf of the above-named

accused person, Mr. Sougaijam Robindro Singh, by his brother in law with a

KABOR

AMBAM

SAPAN

A

CHANU

Digitally

signed by

KABORAMBA

M SAPANA

CHANU

Date:

2022.05.23

13:58:45

+05'30'

MC (Cril.A.) No. 20 of 2021

Page 2

prayer for suspending the operation of the impugned conviction order dated

27.11.2020 and sentence order dated 07.12.2020 and to release the above

name convicted person on bail during the pendency of the connected appeal.

[3]

The learned Special Judge (ND&PS), Manipur passed the impugned

judgment and order dated 27.11.2020 in Special Trial Case No. 13 of 2019,

holding the above name accused person guilty and convicted him under

section 29 read with section 21 (b)/ 22 (c) of the ND&PS Act, 1985 and

passed the order dated 07.12.2020 sentencing him to undergo twelve years

R.I. with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only).

[4]

In support of the prayer made in the present application, the learned

counsel for the applicant raised the following two grounds:-

(a) the prosecution has totally failed to prove the alleged seizure

of the contrabands from the possession or at the instance of the

aforesaid convicted person inasmuch as, the independent

witnesses did not corroborate with the statements of the PWs

No. 1 & 2, who are interested witnesses;

(b) search and seizure was carried out without complying with

the mandatory provisions of section 41 (2) and 42 (1) & (2) of the

ND&PS Act, 1985, inasmuch as, the information obtained by the

concerned officers about commission of the offence was not

taken down in writing and produced before the Trial Court during

the course of the Trial.

MC (Cril.A.) No. 20 of 2021

Page 3

[5]

In connection with the first ground raised by the learned counsel for

the applicant, it has been submitted that as per the prosecution story two

independent witnesses were present at the time of search and seizure of the

contrabands from the possession of the convicted persons. However, during

the Trial, the prosecution produced only one of the independent witness, viz,

Lemapokpam Michael (PW No. 3), who clearly stated in his cross-

examination that he puts his signature in the seizure memo dated 04.05.2018

at the NAB Police Station, Imphal and that he had never visited Moreh in his

life.

The learned counsel further submitted that the said PW No. 3 was not

declared by the prosecution as a hostile witness and accordingly, the

statements given by the said independent witness cannot be ignored and that

on consideration of the statements given by the said PW No. 3, it is crystal

clear that he was never present at the time of search and seizure of the

contraband from the possess