Satpal & Ors. v. State of Uttaranchal (Now State of Uttarakhand)

Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the lower court record. (3) Prosecution story, in brief, is that

27.08.1999, Sub Inspector Indra Jeet Singh Sandhu (PW4) alonwith Head Constable Satendra Pal Sharma (PW1) and constable Braham Singh (PW3) were on patrol duty near Police Station Muni-ki-Reti. A secret informer told that two persons were selling Cannabis (CHARAS) near match factory. On this information, the police team went towards said apprehended present accused/appellants Satpal and Om Prakash, who 3 were found in possession of 100 grams and 150 grams respectively, of the contraband item (Cannabis) at 1.30 p.m. The search is said to have been made in the presence of Circle Officer K.C. Balodi (PW5) who came there on receiving the information. The recovery memo (Ex-A1) was prepared, and First Information Report was lodged at the Police Station Muni-ki-Reti. Crime No. 517 of 1999 was registered against the accused Satpal, and Crime No. 518 of 1999 was registered against the accused Om Prakash. Both the crimes were investigated by Station House Officer Vinod Chauhan, who submitted charge sheets (Ex-A5) and (Ex-A6) against accused/appellants Satpal and Om Prakash for their trial in respect of offence punishable under section 8/20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, 1985. (4) After giving necessary copies, and hearing the parties the trial court framed charge of offence punishable under section 8/20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, on

05.01.2000, to which both the accused/appellants 4 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this prosecution got examined PW1 Head Constable Satendra Pal Singh, PW2 Constable Dinesh Ramola, PW3 Constable Braham Singh, PW4 Sub Inspector Indra Jeet Singh Sandhu and PW5 Deputy S.P., K.C. Balodi. (5) The oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused persons under section 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which they pleaded that the evidence adduced against them was false. However, no evidence in defence was adduced. The trial court after hearing the parties found that the prosecution has successfully proved charge of offence punishable under section 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, against both the accused Satpal and Om Prakash and convicted them accordingly. After hearing on sentence each one of the convicts was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and directed to pay fine of ` one lac. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated

29.01.2001, passed by Special Judge/Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, in Special Trial No. 06 of 5 1999, this appeal is filed by the convicts. (6) Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there is no evidence on record showing that the provision of section 55 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, was complied by the police personnel. Section 55 provides that an officer in charge of a police station shall take charge of and keep in safe custody, pending the orders of the Magistrate, all articles seized under the 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 such articles or to take samples of and from them and all samples so taken shall also be sealed with a seal of the officer in charge of the police station. Learned counsel for the State failed to show that the section 55 was complied with. (7) It is also argued that there is no evidence as the compliance of section 57 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, which requires 6 that the report of the seizure should have been made within forty eight hours to the immediate official superior to the official, who seized the contraband item. (8) Attention this this Court is drawn to the statements of the police personnel, and following contradictions are shown for consideration of this Court. (i) PW1 Head Constable Satendra Pal Singh has stated in his cross examination that the secret informant met the police team at a distance of 4-5 meters from police station while PW3 constable Braham Singh disclose that the secret informant met them about 500 meter away from the police station. PW4 Sub Inspector Indra Jeet Singh Sandhu told that the place was about 4 furlong from the police station. (ii) PW1 Satendra Pal Singh and PW3 Braham Singh told that when the Deputy S.P. (K.C.Balodi PW5) reached at the spot 7 there was only driver accompanying him, but PW5 L.C.Balodi told that he was accompanied not only with the driver but also with the gunner. (iii) PW1 Head Constable Satendra Pal Singh and PW3 Braham Singh told that cloth in which the contraband item was in the bag of Sub Inspector Indra Jeet Singh (PW4) but PW5 K.C. Balodi told that he sent a police constable to the market for sealing the recovered articles. (9) Having considered contradictions No. (i) and No. (iii) this Court is of the view that the same cannot be said to be minor contradictions. Apart from this, there is no evidence on record, suggesting that the contraband item was weighed at the spot before the same was sealed. (10) From the above discussion, considering the quantity of Cannabis (100 gm and 150 gm) said to have been recovered from the appellants it cannot be ruled out that the same was planted. 8 There is no public witness of the recovery. Apart from this, there is no compliance of the provision contained in section 55 and section 57 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. Taking all these factors together, this Court is of the view that it cannot be said that as against the accused/appellants Satpal and Om Prakash charge under section 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act., stands proved. (11) Therefore, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 29.01.2001, passed by Special Judge/Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, in Special Trial No. 06 of 1999, convicting the accused/appellants Satpal and Om Prakash under section 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is hereby set aside. Both the appellants are acquitted of the charge. They are on bail. They need not to surrender. Lower court record be sent back. Dt.17.10.2012 N.P (Prafulla C. Pant, J.)