Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1258 (MP)

MANOJ KUMAR SHUKLA v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2003-11-18

S.L.JAIN

body2003
Judgment ( 1. ) APPELLANT Manoj Kumar stands convicted under Section 8/20 (b) (i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the "act") and sentenced to R. I. for four years and fine of rs. 10,000/-, in default to further undergo R. I. for one year vide impugned judgment dated 14-7-2002 passed by the Special Judge, Rev/a in Special Case No. 3/2001. ( 2. ) THE facts of the case lie within a narrow compass. On 27-1-2001 p. D. Urmuliya, S. H. O. , Police Station Churhata, District Rewa, received an information that appellant is transporting Ganja in Tempo No. MP17-T/0511. Inspector Urmuliya called panch witnesses namely Jai Singh and Mahesh and informed them regarding the information received by him. A report to that effect was recorded in Rojnamcha Sanha No. 947. He also prepared a panchnama and sent the information to his immediate superior. In the process of obtaining search warrant there was likelihood of appellants abscontion and concealment of Ganja, hence with the available police force and the panch witnesses Inspector Urmuliya proceeded towards National Highway No. 7, without obtaining search warrant. When he reached near Village Khairi, he saw the aforesaid tempo going towards Dheka. A sack was lying on the back side of the tempo. He asked the appellant who was driving the tempo to stop the vehicle but he fled away with the vehicle. He followed the tempo upto village Maidanee, where appellant stopped the tempo. On being asked appellant informed that he is carrying one sack Ganja to Dwari. ( 3. ) INSPECTOR Urmuliya informed the appellant of his right to be searched before the Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. The appellant gave his consent for the search by Inspector Urmuliya. The appellant took out one sack of ganja and gave it to the Inspector who seized the same. Thereafter seized article was weighed. The total weight of the article was 30 kilogram. One kilogram of Ganja was separately seized for sample. The vehicle was also seized. Information of the arrest of the appellant was given to his brother nagesh Shukla. Appellant along with seized article and tempo was brought to the police station and crime was registered. Seized Ganja was handed over to malkhana in charge for its safe custody. A full report containing all particulars of arrest and a seizure was sent to senior officer. Information of the arrest of the appellant was given to his brother nagesh Shukla. Appellant along with seized article and tempo was brought to the police station and crime was registered. Seized Ganja was handed over to malkhana in charge for its safe custody. A full report containing all particulars of arrest and a seizure was sent to senior officer. The aforesaid sample was sent to F. S. L. , Sagar, for analysis. According to the report of F. S. L. , Sagar, seized article was found to be Ganja. ( 4. ) AFTER completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for the aforesaid offence for which a charge was framed against the appellant. Appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded that he was the owner of the aforesaid tempo but before the date of offence the tempo was sold to one Raj Kishore by him but his name could not be entered in the record of the R. T. O. as vehicle was hypothecated with the bank. He being the registered owner of the tempo was called from his residence and was implicated in the alleged offence. After concluding the trial, learned Trial Judge found the appellant guilty and as such convicted and sentenced him as indicated above. ( 5. ) I have heard Shri Ashutosh Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri S. D. Khan, Govt. Advocate, for the State/respondent, and gone through the record of the case. ( 6. ) SHRI Singh led me through the record and contended that the learned Trial Judge erred in holding the appellant guilty for the offence charged. He submitted that the conviction and sentence of appellant are bad, improper and illegal. As against this learned Counsel for State has supported the judgment of the Trial Court. ( 7. ) P. D. Urmuliya (P. W. 8) Town Inspector stated that on receiving the information that appellant is transporting Ganja in Tempo No. MP17t 0511, he alongwith police force and Panch witnesses went to Churhata, on national Highway No. 7. Appellant reached there driving the said tempo. When he tried to stop the same appellant did not stop. He followed the tempo and the same could be stopped at Baidani. He informed the appellant of his right to be searched before the Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. Appellant gave his consent for a search by him. Appellant reached there driving the said tempo. When he tried to stop the same appellant did not stop. He followed the tempo and the same could be stopped at Baidani. He informed the appellant of his right to be searched before the Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. Appellant gave his consent for a search by him. One sack of Ganja was seized. The seized article was weighed and found to be 30 kilogram in weight. For sample one kilogram of Ganja was separately seized. Tempo was also seized vide Ex. P-7. This witness has been corroborated by Girja Prasad, Head Constable (P. W. 5)and Rajendra Prasad Verma, Constable (P. W. 4 ). ( 8. ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant contended that independent witnesses namely Mahesh (P. W. 1) and Jai Singh (P. W. 7) have not corroborated the statement of Police Officer, therefore, conviction can not rest on uncorroborated testimony of police officer. ( 9. ) THE contention is not acceptable. The Inspector of police or a constable can not be considered absolutely as partisan witnesses. The evidence of Police Officials can not be discredited merely because they are police officials. There is no rule of law or evidence which lays down that conviction can not be recorded on the evidence of police officials even if found reliable unless corroborated by some independent evidence. After careful scrutiny of the evidence of police officials the Trial Court found it to be trust worthy and reliable. After carefully perusing the evidence of police officials I also feel that the same inspires confidence and is trustworthy and reliable. ( 10. ) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the appellant brought to my notice certain variance in the statements of police officials and documents prepared by them. There are no variance so far as substratum is concerned. Learned Counsel for the appellant further submitted that Urmuliya (P. W. 8)has stated that the contraband article was shifted to police station in Tempo whereas other witness Girja Prasad Pandey has stated that same was shifted in a Jeep. This is a minor contraction which does not affect the merit of the case. The accused could not show any enmity with the police officials. There is no reason that Inspector Urmuliya will falsely implicate the appellant. It can not be held that police officials were interested in falsely implicating the appellant. ( 11. This is a minor contraction which does not affect the merit of the case. The accused could not show any enmity with the police officials. There is no reason that Inspector Urmuliya will falsely implicate the appellant. It can not be held that police officials were interested in falsely implicating the appellant. ( 11. ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant next contended that mandatory provisions contained in Sections 42,50,55 and 57 of the Act have not been complied with. ( 12. ) IT is true that mandate of law as incorporated in the Act is required to be strictly complied with in view of the grave consequence which are likely to be followed on proof of possession of illicit article. The safeguards in various provisions of the Act must be proved to have been strictly followed but on carefully perusing the evidence of Urmuliya (P. W. 8), I find that the legal requirement of Sections 42, 50, 55 and 57 have been complied with. Inspector Urmuliya recorded the received information in writing. He had a reason to believe that a search warrant or authorisation can not be obtained without affording an opportunity for the concealment of article or facility for the escape of the of fencer, the accused was informed of his right to be searched before the Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. Seized article was kept in the safe custody and a full report of arrest and seizure of article under the Act was made to his immediate superior, therefore, this contention also is not acceptable. ( 13. ) THE evaluation made by the Trial Court of the evidence of material witnesses does not suffer from any illegality, manifest error or perversity. The Trial Court carefully wrote the judgment, exhaustively considered the evidence and on an analysis reached to the conclusions which in my opinion, are pre - eminately reasonable and support the order of conviction. ( 14. ) AFORESAID being the position regarding the evidence given by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the appellant, I do not find any substance in any of the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant. The trial Court has considered and appreciated the evidence on record in proper perspective and there is no reason for interference with the conviction of the appellant. The trial Court has considered and appreciated the evidence on record in proper perspective and there is no reason for interference with the conviction of the appellant. So far as sentence is concerned, looking to the seriousness of the offence, sentence of rigorous imprisonment of four years can not be said to be harsh. The sentence of fine imposed by the Trial Court, is also quite reasonable and calls for no interference. ( 15. ) IN view of what has been discussed above, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. The conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court are hereby maintained. Criminal Appeal dismissed.