High Court
Case Details
Crl.A. 41/2006 BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. (DR.) JUSTICE INDIRA SHAH JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL) This is an appeal against the judgment dated 03.12.2005 passed b y the learned Special Judge, Darrang, at Mangaldoi, convicting the appellants un der Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 198 5, (NDPS Act, in short) and sentencing them thereby to undergo rigorous imprison ment for 10 years with fine of Rs. 50,000/- each, in default, further rigorous i mprisonment for one year, each. 2. Heard Mr. T. Bidyut Bikash, learned counsel, as well as Mr. R. D ev, learned amicus curiae, appearing on behalf of the appellants, and Mr. K. Mun ir, learned Addl. P.P., appearing on behalf of the respondent State of Assam. 3.
Legal Reasoning
The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 17.03.2013, at around 7PM, while the Village Defence Personnel(VDP, in short), of Kukurbhukia village were on patrolling duty, they saw 20 persons proceeding along with gunny bags o n their backs. Seeing the VDP party, they started running. They were chased but leaving the gunny bags, they managed to escape. Subsequently, 4 amongst the afor esaid 20 persons were apprehended by the VDP and 19 bags containing Ganja like s ubstance were recovered. Police was informed who seized and weighed the Ganja li ke substance which came to be 395 Kgs.. Samples from the suspected Ganja were dr awn and sent to FSL for examination. Inspector of Police of Mazbat police lodged the formal FIR. On receipt of the report from the FSL that the samples gave pos itive test of Cannabis(Ganja), charge-sheet were submitted against the accused p ersons. 4. During the trial, the accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them under Section 20(b)(C) of NDPS Act, and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined altogether examined 9 witnesses to prov 5. e its case. The accused persons, in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied that they were amongst the 20 persons who were carrying the gunn y bags containing ganja. According to them, they were apprehended by the VDP par ty later on. They also took the plea that they came to the village in search of a girl of their village who went on missing and while they were returning late a t night, they were apprehended. They, however, did not adduce any evidence in th eir defence. PW-1, Dina Gore, deposed that he along with other VDP party was 6. on patrolling duty and saw 20-22 persons proceeding the village road carrying 19 bags on their backs. Seeing them, those persons fled away. After one hour, the accused persons entered in the village after consuming liquor and they were appr ehended by the VDP party. Later on, they were handed over to the police. He cate gorically stated that no ganja was recovered from the possession of the accused persons. Similarly, PW-2, Bhutkul Gore, stated that persons who were carr 7. ying ganja in gunny bags fled away and after one and half hour, the accused pers ons were apprehended in the village. No ganja was recovered from their possessio n. 8 t the accused persons were handed over to the police merely on suspicion. PW-3, Suku Sai Gore, also deposed in the same line and added tha PW-4, Sankaranan Gore, stated that 19 persons were carrying gunn 9. y bags and seeing them, they fled away. Later on, the accused persons were appre hended. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the persons who were carrying gunny bags, could not be identified by them. The accused persons were intoxicat ed and making noise. It is evident from the evidence that the gunny bags containing g 10. anja were left by 19 persons and it were not recovered from the possession of th e accused persons. It is in the evidence of PW-5, Sahajul Gore, that the 4 accused 11. persons were apprehended from amongst the 19 persons. However, in his cross-exam ination, he admitted that the accused persons came later on, then they were appr ehended and the people who left the gunny bags, could not be identified. 12. PW-6, Thengra Gore, turned hostile to the prosecution. PWs-7 and 8 are the seizure witnesses. The ganja was seized in their presence from a scho ol building. It was weighed in their presence. PW-9, Subash Kachari, is the investigating officer. He deposed t 13. hat on receipt of information, it was entered in the G.D. and he went to the pla ce of occurrence where the accused persons were apprehended by the villagers. He seized the gunny bags containing the ganja from a school building. The ganja wa s weighed, samples were drawn and one sample was sent to the FSL for examination . On receipt of the FSL report that the sample gave positive test on Cannabis(ga nja), he submitted the charge-sheet. In his cross-examination, he admitted that in the present case, he himself lodged the FIR and completed the investigation. He stated that he recorded the confessional statement of the accused persons, bu t, he did not forward them to the Court to record their confessional statements. Altogether 19 bags containing ganja, weighing 395 kgs., were sei 14. zed vide Ext.-2. It appears from the FSL report that only 25 grams of sample in sealed envelope was received for chemical examination. The I.O. has not disclose d the quantity of ganja drawn from each gunny bags as samples. The contraband ga nja was seized on 18.03.2003 as per the seizure list. From the FSL report, it ap pears that the sample of ganja was received on 08.04.2003. There is no evidence where the seized ganja or samples were kept from 18.03.2003 to 08.04.2003. Section 55 of the NDPS Act, reads, as under: 15. (cid:28)55. Police to take charge of articles seized and delivered. - An officer-in-cha rge of a police station shall take charge of and keep in safe custody, pending t he orders of the Magistrate, all articles seized under this Act within the local area of that police station and which may be delivered to him, and shall allow any officer who may accompany such articles to the police station or who may be deputed for the purpose, to affix his seal to scuh articles or to take samples o f and from them and all samples so taken shall also be sealed with a seal of the officer-in-charge of the police station. (cid:29) 16. Here, in this case, there is no averment by the I.O. that the se ized ganja was kept in safe custody by the officer-in-charge of the police stati on concerned. There is also no explanation of the delay in sending the samples f or chemical examination to the FSL. In the case of Sh. Chanam Ranjit Meitei v. Union of India, 2010( 17. 3) GLT 361, it was held in paragraph No. 23, as follows: (cid:28)(23). The whole object of provision under Section 55 seems to be that the offi cer-in-charge of the police station should ensure that the seized articles and t he samples extracted therefrom by the seizing authority are not tampered with in any manner. It is, therefore, the duty of the officer-in-charge of the police s tation, as a custodian, to deposit the seized articles in the ’malkhana’ after a ffixing his own seal impression in addition to the seal of the investigating off icer. No evidence has been led by the prosecution to prove the fact that the sei zed ganja were placed in the custody of the officer-in-charge of any police stat ion in compliance with the provisions under Section 55 of the ND and PS Act. The evidence of PW-4, I.O. and PW-3, Superintendent of Customs, is silent about the compliance of the aforesaid provision of law. The legislature by incorporating Section 55 intended fair investigation by putting the sized materials beyond the reach of the seizing officer and eliminate the possibilities of tampering the s ample till the same reaches the hands of the chemical examiner. Looking at the f act that the seizing officer did not place the seized ganja in the custody of th e officer-in-charge concerned in violation of the express provision of Section 5 5 and without complying with the provision under Section 53A(2), a serious preju dice has been caused to the accused-appellant in as much as he has been convicte d primarily on the basis of positive report of the chemical examiner who tested sample, the seized ganja sent by the prosecution which was exposed to tampering and manipulation before sending it to FSL. IN MY considered view, non-compliance of such provision of law to the prejudice of the accused-appellant vitiated the trial so much so to reverse the conviction order. (cid:29) 18. In the case of Bhim Ram & ors. V. State of Assam, 2012 (1) GLT 4 16, it was held in paragraph No. 11, that the provision under Section 55 of the Act is not mandatory, rather directory but the Apex Court in Gurbax Singh vs. St ate of Haryana reported in AIR 2001 SC 1002, held that the I.O. cannot totally i gnore the provision and failure in compliance with the same will have a bearing on appreciation of evidence regarding arrests of the accused or seizure of the a rticles. It needs no repetition that PW-5 as in-charge of the police out post as well as the I.O. of the case, initiated and completed the entire process of pac keting the samples of seized ganja, sending them for chemical examination and co llecting the FSL report but he failed to satisfy the court how he could take act ion which were otherwise to be taken by the O/C of the police station concerned. His failure in informing the O/C of the police station and taking action withou t his knowledge and authority has a serious bearing with the bonafide of his ent ire action. In this case, apart from the legal and technical defects, the p 19. rosecution even failed to establish that the accused persons were carrying the g anja and the ganja bags were recovered from their exclusive possession. Therefor e, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is liable t o be set aside and it is accordingly hereby set aside. The accused appellants ar e acquitted and set at liberty forthwith, if they are not required in connection with any other police case. 20.
Decision
The appeal accordingly stands allowed and disposed of. 21. b, learned amicus curiae, for the valuable assistance rendered by him. The State Government is directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- to Mr. R. De 22. rt below, forthwith. Send down the LCRs along with a copy of this judgment to the Cou