High Court
Case Details
Crl.A. 157/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE DR.(MRS.) JUSTICE I. SHAH JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL)
Facts
The Judgment and Order dated 09.07.2008, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup, in G.R. Case No. 2799 of 2007, convicting the appellant under Sec tion 22(C) of the NDPS Act and sentencing him thereby to undergo rigorous impris onment for 10 years with fine of Rupees one lakh, in default, further rigorous i mprisonment for one year, has been challenged in this appeal. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that, on 28.05.2002, A.S.I. GRPS Bish nu Prasad Goyari along with GRPS constables namely Haren Das and Zakir Hussain w ere on mobile train checking duty in Up Kamrup Express. At about 4.30 pm, when t he train was in between Kamakhya and Guwahati Railway Stations, they saw a VIP S uitcase beneath the seat of the accused appellant. On suspicion, they enquired t he accused about the suitcase. Initially, the accused denied to be the owner of the said suitcase. However, subsequently, he admitted that the suitcase belonged to him and he was carrying some capsules and tablets. The accused, along with t he suitcase, were brought to Guwahati Railway Police Station(GRPS, in short), an d the matter was reported to the Officer-in-charge of GRPS, Guwahati. The O.C. e ntered the information in General Diary and entrusted the task of investigation to S.I. Ramesh Talukdar. The said S.I. arrested the accused, seized the suitcase , containing 12600 capsules marked with word spm-prx, and 1000 tablets marked wi th Nitrazenpam. He also seized the suitcase and the railway ticket from the accu sed. Thereafter, he drew samples of the capsules and tablets, and sent it to Fo rensic Laboratory for chemical examination. On receipt of the chemical examinati on report to the effect that the samples gave positive test for Nitrazenpam, Dex tropropoxyphene, Dichlomine and paracetamol, he submitted the charge-sheet again st the accused. During the trial, charge under Section 21(C), of the NDPS Act, was frame 3. d against the accused, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5(five) witnesses including the Investigating Officer(I.O.) were examined by the prosecution. The accused, in his statement, recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied that he was carrying contraband tablets and capsules. He pleaded that he was innocent. However, no defence evidence was adduced. The learned trial Court relying on the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3, convicted and sentenced the ac cused, as stated above. 4. , learned Additional P.P., Assam.
Legal Reasoning
(cid:28)14. ed not before an ordinary police officer, but before an officer, under the Narco tic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ’NDP S Act’) who is an officer of the Department of Revenue Intelligence, and it is h eld by this Court in Raj Kumar Karwal vs. Union of India and others <http://www. indiankanoon.org/doc/1460328/> (1990) 2 SCC 409, that such a confession is not h it by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. 15. We are of the opinion that while it is true that a confession made befor e an officer of the Department of Revenue Intelligence under the NDPS Act may no t be hit by Section 25 in view of the aforesaid decisions, yet such a confession must be subject to closer scrutiny than a confession made to private citizens o r officials who do not have investigating powers under Act. Hence the alleged co nfession made by the same appellant must be subjected to closer scrutiny than wo uld otherwise be required. (cid:29) 11. In this case, the nexus of the accused with the suitcase, in question, c ontaining contraband tablets and capsules, have been tried, to be established, o n the basis of a confessional statement of the accused. PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3, ha ve stated that the accused admitted that he is the owner of the suitcase and he was carrying capsules and tablets. The so-called confessional statement, was, ne ither recorded, by PW-1, nor by the Investigating Officer. Admittedly, the suitc ase was lying beneath the seat of the general compartment, which was occupied by the accused along with other co-passengers. There is nothing in the seizure lis t to show that the accused claimed that the suitcase belonged to him. The prose cution case is that, the accused confessed that he was carrying tablets and caps ules in the seized VIP suitcase. The accused, in his statement, recorded under S ection 313 Cr.P.C., however, retracted and stated that he never claimed the suit case, as alleged, by the prosecution. 12. This Court, in the case of Manik Debnath and another Vs. State of Assam, reported in 2008 (1) GLT 205, relying on the judgment, reported in AIR 2002 SC 3343, Avtar Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab, held that mere finding/discovery of any incriminating article in front of a particular shopkeeper cannot led to the natural presumption that the same belonged to that particular shopkeeper. Th at apart, in this case, the alleged contraband tablets seized on 28.05.2007, at about 5.20 pm, was received at F.S.L. on 31.05.2007. There is no evidence to sho w as to where the seized articles were kept after it was seized on 28.05.2007. M oreover, the percentage of Nitrazenpam, Dextropropoxyphene, Dichlomine and Parac etamol, from the samples, was never ascertained by the Scientific Officer. There fore, the findings of the learned trial Court that the seized articles were of c ommercial quantity and for which the accused, was liable to be convicted under S ection 22(C) of the NDPS Act, is not correct. It is seen that neither the confes sional statement of the accused was recorded by the police nor was he forwarded to the Court with a prayer to record his confessional statement. It is also seen that no independent witness was examined to substantiate the fact that the accu sed confessed his guilt and furthermore, the accused retracted from his so-calle d confession, in his statement, under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.. 13. In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court convicting and sentencing the accuse d, under Section 22(C) of the NDPS Act, is liable to be set aside and quashed. T he same is hereby set aside and quashed. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The accused is hereby set at liberty, in connection with this case, forthwith. 14. Send down the LCR immediately. JUDGE Bikash
Arguments
Heard Mr. P. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, and Ms. A. Begum 5. PW-1, Bishnu Prasad Goyari, ASI of GRPS, deposed that, soon after the tr ain left the Kamakhya Station, he found one VIP Suitcase kept beneath the seat o f a passenger in the general compartment. When he enquired about the said suitca se, the accused denied about the ownership of the same. Subsequently, he admitt ed that the suitcase belonged to him. It is, in his evidence, that the accused o pened the suitcase, wherein, he found some tablets. The accused told them that t he tablets were some drugs and on suspicion, the said accused was taken to GRPS Headquarter. In his cross-examination, PW-1 stated that he along with the consta bles, above named, checked the train thoroughly from one compartment to another. However, they did not open any other bag in any other compartment on that day. The compartment was full of passengers and there were some other bags too. PW-1 admitted that he did not state before the I.O. that the accused himself opened t he bag. The O.C. of GRPS seized the bag from him(PW-1). None of the passengers t ravelling in the said compartment of the train, were examined by the Investigati ng Officer. 6. PW-2, Ram Hullas Ram, a constable, corroborating the evidence of PW-1, s tated that soon after the train left the Kamakhya Station, they found one VIP su itcase in the general compartment kept beneath the seat of the passenger. The ac cused claimed the said suitcase, to be, his own. The accused opened the suitcase wherein they found some tablets. Thereafter, the accused was taken to GRPS. In his cross-examination, PW-2 stated that they checked about 10-12 bags in the sai d train, on the relevant day. He further stated that there were 5(five) polythen e bags inside the suitcase. 7. The evidence of PW-3, J. Hussain, a constable, is on the same line. In h is cross-examination, he stated that no particular seat was allotted to any pass engers in the said general compartment, on the relevant day. There were about 7 passengers sitting on the same bench/seat beneath which the suitcase was found. According to him, there were 10-15 carry bags containing capsules and tablets. T hey(PW-3, PW-2 and PW-1) did not ask anybody from the said compartment to become witness to the recovery of the suitcase. The police did not seize any key of th e said VIP suitcase from anybody. 8. PW-4, Dhruba Jyoti Hazarika, Scientific Officer in the Department of Dru gs and Narcotics Division, FSL, examined the samples and found the samples gave positive test for Dextropropoxyphene, Dichlomine and paracetamol. Another sample gave positive test for Nitrazenpam. In his cross-examination, PW-4 stated that he can not say whether the contents of the samples, in question, are also used f or medical purpose. 9. PW-5, S.I. Ramesh Talukdar, deposed that on the day of the occurrence, a t about 5 pm, A.S.I. Bishnu Prasad Goyari(PW-1) detected a man with a suitcase i n the Kamrup Express. He(PW-1) brought the man along with the suitcase to the GR PS and reported the matter to the O/C. The PW-1 exhibited the relevant G.D.E.. T hereafter, PW-5 was authorised by the Inspector of R.P., Guwahati, to investigat e the case. On interrogation, he came to know from the accused that the accused was carrying tablets and capsules to Dimapur. PW-5 seized the capsules and table ts along with the railway ticket. He(PW-5) drew samples from the said articles a nd then sent it to the Forensic Laboratory, for chemical examination. PW-5 depos ed that the accused confessed his guilt and he was accordingly arrested and forw arded to the judicial custody. He recorded the statement of witnesses, collected the report from F.S.L. and on completion of the investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet. In his cross-examination, PW-5 admitted that PW-1 did not state b efore him that the accused open the bag. PW-5 also admitted that no other passen gers from the train were examined by him(PW-5). PW-5 also denied that seizure wa s made inside the compartment of the train. The suitcase had lock-in system at e ither side but he(PW-5) did not find the key of the said suitcase with the accus ed person. 10. In the cited case of Francis Stanly @ Stalin and others, vs. Intelligenc e Officer, (AIR 2007 SC 794), it has been observed, in paragraphs No. 14 and 15, as under: It is true that in the present case the confession was made by the accus