Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1884 (RAJ)

Guneshgar v. State of Rajasthan

2008-08-07

DEO NARAYAN THANVI

body2008
Hon ble THANVI, J.—These are two separate appeals, one filed by Guneshgar and the other by Rukmana Ram against the judgment of the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Jodhpur dated 17.7.06, whereby both the accused appellants were convicted for the offence u/s.8/15 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, hereinafter referred-to as “the Act and sentenced to ten years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.one lac and in default, to further undergo one year s S.I. 2. Facts leading to these appeals are that on 25.5.05 at 3 P.M., when the SHO Ramchandra of Police Station, Dhorimanna, District Barmer, was patrolling with other police staff in Govt. jeep being No.RJ04C1781 & intercepting the vehicles for checking at Meethda Phanta on National highway No.15, at 5 PM they saw one Tata Sumo with black glasses, which were closed, coming from the side of Gandharv. On suspicion, they tried to stop the vehicle but the driver on seeing the police party, rushed the vehicle towards Dhorimanna. The Govt. vehicle was turned towards the Tata Sumo and at some distance, the Tata Sumo was stopped. The name of the driver was Rukhmana Ram and the person sitting nearby disclosed his name to be Guneshgar, who are present appellants. Upon asking the reason for driving the vehicle at fast speed, they apologized. On opening the gate from the side of the driver, large number of contraband `dodapost was found for which they were having no valid licence. The constable Moola Ram thereupon was sent at Police Station for bringing the investigation box and weights & measures were obtained from the market. The motbirs Fauja Ram and Babulal were called from another vehicle plying on the road. Thereafter, the gunnybags were turned out of the vehicle and on checking, they were found to be six in number with `dodapost . In each gunnybag, the contraband article was found to be 38 kgs., out of which 500 gms. of two samples from each of the gunnybags was taken, which were sealed in cotton bag and marked as `A and `A-1 and rest of the 37 kgs. was sealed and marked as `A-2 . Accused were arrested and taken to the police Station. During investigation, the seized articles were sent for chemical examination and thereafter the challan was filed against the accused u/s.8/15 of the Act. was sealed and marked as `A-2 . Accused were arrested and taken to the police Station. During investigation, the seized articles were sent for chemical examination and thereafter the challan was filed against the accused u/s.8/15 of the Act. The accused were charged accordingly to which they pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses. The statements of the accused were recorded u/s.313 CrPC. They produced Gena Ram, DW 1 and Oma Ram, DW 2 in their defence. After hearing the arguments, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as above. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants have vehemently contended that in the present case, the compliance of Section 42 of the Act has not been made because the information or knowledge through which the contraband articles were seized, was not reduced to writing and was not forwarded to the superior officer. The learned trial Court has wrongly held that this is a case covered u/s.43 of the Act. According to the learned counsel, even if there is a search on the public place or in transit, the information has to be reduced in writing and is required to be sent to the superior officer. Their next contention is that in this case, the Malkhana articles i.e. 6 gunnybags, each containing 37 kgs. of contraband article, have also not been produced in the court for identification as also it is revealed from the FSL Report that the samples were packed in a cotton bag, whereas as per the recovery memo and the statement of the SHO Ramchandra, they were sealed in plastic bag and thereafter in the cotton bag. Apart from this discrepancy, the seals are also different and they were not intact, as they were not re-sealed while depositing the same in the Malkhana. This has resulted in non-compliance of Section 55 of the Act. In support of their contentions, they have placed reliance on various pronouncements, which will be referred at the later stage. 4. Per contra, learned P.P. has supported the judgment of the trial Court and has submitted that this is not a case covered u/s.42 of the Act but it is a case falling u/s.43 of the Act and there is no need to reduce the information in writing or to send the same to the superior officer as required u/s.42 of the Act. He has further submitted that the seals were intact as per the FSL Report and the seal was of the SHO of the Police Station. If the witnesses have said somewhere that it was of the Police Station, is of no substance. According to him, these provisions are not mandatory but directory in nature. As regards the non-production of the Malkhana articles in the court, he submitted that though the articles have not been produced but controlled sample has been marked as Exhibit by he recovery officer. 5. Having bestowed consideration on the applicability of Sections 42 and 43 of the Act, it is clear from the language used in Section 42(1) that if any such officer of the departments of central excise, narcotics, customs, revenue intelligence or any other department of the Central Government or any such officer of the revenue, drugs control, excise, police or any other department of the State Government, is empowered in this behalf by a general or special order of the State Govt. and if he has reason to believe from personal knowledge or information given by any person and taken down in writing between sunrise and sunset, he may search and seize the article by virtue of sub-sec. (1) of Sec.42 of the Act. Sub-sec.(2) provides that such information which has been taken down in writing under sub-section (1) or records grounds for his belief under the proviso to above section dealing with the search between the sunset and sunrise, he shall within 72 hours send a copy thereof to his immediate superior officer. Thus, under Section 42(2), information or knowledge or grounds of belief has to be taken down in writing but under Sec.43 of the Act, if such seizure and arrest is made at a public place or in transit with regard to any narcotic drug or controlled substance, then no such knowledge or information or belief is required to be taken down in writing. In such case of seizure, he must have a reason to believe that an offence under the Act has been committed. Section 42 comes into play when there is a pre knowledge or information with regard to commission of offence but under Sec. 43, it is not necessary that there must be pre knowledge or information. In such case of seizure, he must have a reason to believe that an offence under the Act has been committed. Section 42 comes into play when there is a pre knowledge or information with regard to commission of offence but under Sec. 43, it is not necessary that there must be pre knowledge or information. While patrolling at a public place or in transit, if there is a reason to believe that the offence has been committed, then any officer of the departments mentioned in Section 42 of the Act may seize the contraband articles and may detain any person. Under the Explanation to Sec. 43, it is clearly mentioned that “public place” includes any public conveyance, hotel, shop or other place intended for use by, or accessible to, the public. 6. Here in the present case, as revealed from the statement of seizing authority Ramchandra, PW 5, it is clear that he was authorized u/s.42 of the Act by virtue of the Notification No.F-1(3) FD/EX/85-1, dated 16.10.1986 issued by the State of Rajasthan and published in the Rajasthan Gazette, Extra, Part IV-C (II), whereby all Inspectors of Police and Sub Inspectors of police, posted as Station House Officer, have been authorized to exercise the powers mentioned in Section 42 of the said Act. This Notification reads as under: “S.O. 115.- In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Act No.61 of 1985) the State Government hereby authorise all Inspectors of Police, and Sub-inspectors of police, posted as Station House Officers, to exercise the powers mentioned in Section 42 of the said Act with immediate fact: Provided that when power is exercised by Police Officer other than Police Inspector of the area concerned such officer shall immediately hand over the person arrested and articles seized to the concerned Police Inspector or S.H.O. of the Police Station concerned.” 7. As he was the S.H.O. at the relevant time i.e. on 25.5.05 of the Police Station, Dhorimanna and he was patrolling on National Highway No.15 at Meethda Fanta, he was competent to exercise powers under the Act. As he was the S.H.O. at the relevant time i.e. on 25.5.05 of the Police Station, Dhorimanna and he was patrolling on National Highway No.15 at Meethda Fanta, he was competent to exercise powers under the Act. It is immaterial that he has not produced the list of those vehicles, which he checked but the place from where the recovery has been made, is a public place and the vehicle Tata Sumo being No.RJ 16 UO-392 was coming from the side of Gandharv, which did not stop on signal and thereafter the police party rushed towards it and stopped it at some distance and contraband articles were found. In such a situation, it was not possible for the SHO to take down the information or any personal knowledge in writing. That is why the legislature has provided for giving safeguard to the recovery officers u/s.43 of the Act when the search is made at a public place or in transit. The Court while interpreting the provisions of the Statute, cannot add or delete the words of a Section or supplement the words favourable to the either party by ignoring the other enabling provisions of the Statute. The language of a Statute has to be interpreted in the light of the intent of the legislature. While enacting the provisions of the Act, especially ss.41 to 43 of the Act, the Legislature provided for two separate categories of seizure, one based on the pre knowledge or information u/s.42 of the Act and another on patrolling at a public place or in transit u/s.43 of the Act. It is hardly possible during patrolling when a contraband article is found, on belief to reduce the information in writing, therefore, the legislature while enacting Section 43 of the Act, excluded the requirement of taking down the knowledge or information into writing and send a copy thereof within 72 hours to the superior officer. 8. When a search is made u/s.43 of the Act, it is sufficient, if a report of arrest and seizure has been sent to the immediate superior officer within 48 hours by virtue of Section 57 of the Act and this compliance has been made vide Ex.P.15, which is a letter by the SHO, PS, Dhorimanna dt.27.5.05, addressed to the SP, Barmer and proved by constables Leel Singh, PW 3 and Girdharilal, PW 4. 9. 9. The law cited by the learned counsel for the appellants is no helpful to the facts of the present case. In Mohinder Kumar vs. State, Panaji reported in AIR 1995 SC 1157 , the police officer accidentally reached the house of accused while on patrolling duty and effected search and did not comply with the provisions of Sec. 42(2) and also did not adhere to the provisions of Sec. 50 of the Act. In the cited case, the search was effected in the house after sunset i.e. between 7.45 PM and 8 PM and the seizing officer did not record the grounds of his belief at any stage of the investigation subsequently to his realizing that the accused persons were in possession of Charas and did not for-ward a copy of the grounds to his superior officer as required by Sec.42(2) of the Act. 10. While discussing the scope of ss.41 to 43 of the Act, the Full Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in State of Punjab vs. Kulwant Singh reported in 1995 Cri.L.J. p.744 held that while using the words “shall forthwith” clearly depicts the intent of the legislature to make these provisions mandatory. In the cited case, while discussing the mandatory requirements of Section 50 of the Act dealing with the personal search of a person, it has been held that the provisions cannot be equated with the illegality resulting from noncompliance of the other safeguards embodied in ss.41, 42, 52, 55 and 57 of the Act and under the same circumstances, it was held that accused is entitled to acquittal for non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act. While concluding the answer to the reference, the Full Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court was of the view that the decisions rendered by Panaji Bench in Abdul Sattar vs. State, 1989 Cri.L.J. 430, by Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Surajmal Kanaiyalal Soni vs. State of Gujarat, 1991 Cri.L.J.1483 and by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pichhpal Singh vs. State, 1989 FAC 133, are not the correct law with regard to the provisions of Sec.50 of the Act and other provisions. While concluding the judgment, the Full Court observed as under: “52. While concluding the judgment, the Full Court observed as under: “52. ........there is no escape but to hold that the provisions of Sections 41, 42, 52, 55 and 57 of the Act are mandatory in the sense that the concerned officials are bound to comply with the same, but their non-compliance per se would not prove fatal to the case unless it has resulted in miscarriage of justice or prejudice to the accused on the facts of a particular case. However, the non-compliance of the provisions of Section 50 of the Act would per se result in vitiating the trial and conviction and it would amount to taking away the most valuable and substantive right of the suspected person in establishing his innocence and rendering the recovery of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances as illegal qua the possession of the accused.” 11. In view of the above discussion, I am also of the view that the provisions of ss.41, 42, 55 and 57 of the Act are mandatory in nature and their non-compliance per se would not prove fatal to the prosecution, unless it has resulted in miscarriage of justice prejudice to the accused on the facts of an individual case, though the non-compliance of Sec.50 of the Act vitiates the trial. Thus, from the above discussion, it is clear that the present case is covered by Section 43 of the Act and non-compliance of Section 42(2) of the Act is neither applicable to the facts of the present case nor fatal. So far as Section 50 of the Act is concerned, there is no breach of it in the present case. 12. Coming to the next argument of the learned counsel about non-production of the Malkhana articles in the Court, which were seized & taken in charge by officer incharge of Police Station, it is clear from the provisions contained in Section 465 CrPC that recovered articles are the basic proof of commission of offence and it is not mere irregularity but is fatal to the prosecution with regard to establishing the identity of a thing. Under Illustration(g) of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, the court may presume that evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person, who withholds it. Under Illustration(g) of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, the court may presume that evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person, who withholds it. Thus, if the evidence is not produced with regard to the identification of the contraband articles recovered, then it will be presumed that the fact of recovery itself, which is a relevant fact for identity of a thing, has not been proved by virtue of Section 9 of the Evidence Act, which deals with the facts necessary to be produced as the relevant facts. In this regard, I am fortified from the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Jitendra and another vs. State of M.P. Reported in 2004 SCC (Cri) 2028, in which it has been held as under: “In the trial, it was necessary for the prosecution to establish by cogent evidence that the alleged quantities of charas and ganja were seized from the possession of the accused. The best evidence would have been the seized materials which ought to have been produced during the trial and marked as material objects. There is no explanation for this failure to produce them. Mere oral evidence as to their features and production of panchnama does not discharge the heavy burden which lies on the prosecution, particularly where the offence is punishable with a stringent sentence as under the NDPS Act.” 13. Here in the present case, from the statement of Ramchandra, PW 5, recovery officer, it appears that six gunnybags were marked as A-02 to F-02 but they have not been produced in the court, which were recovered vide Ex.P.2. On the contrary, the controlled sample articles 01 to 06 have been exhibited alongwith sample articles 07 to 12. Non-production of these Malkhana articles has resulted in failure to establish the identity of a relevant fact, which is fatal to the prosecution and it also creates doubt with regard to the exact sample sent in intact seal to the F.S.L. resulting in noncompliance of Sec.55 of the Act. 14. The last contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is with regard to the tampering of the seal or insufficient intact seal again finds support from the FSL Report Ex.P.27, wherein it is mentioned under the heading “Description of articles” that there were six packets of 510 gms. each alongwith respective cloth bagk. 14. The last contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is with regard to the tampering of the seal or insufficient intact seal again finds support from the FSL Report Ex.P.27, wherein it is mentioned under the heading “Description of articles” that there were six packets of 510 gms. each alongwith respective cloth bagk. The description is as under: “Each of the packet marked A to F contained yellowish brown coloured crushed vegetable matter resembling fragments of poppy capsule weighing 510 gms alongwith respective cloth bag.” 15. In the cross examination of statement of recovery officer Ramchandra, PW 5, it is stated that the samples and controlled samples were first put in polythene bag and thereafter in the cotton bag and the seal was of Police Station, Dhorimanna and it was not resealed before depositing it in the Malkhana. The relevant portion of the cross examination of this witness runs as under: ^^;g lgh gS fd lSEiy o dUVªksy lSEiy dks rkSyus ds ckn iksfyfFku dh FkSyh esa Mkydj fQj diM+s dh FkSyh esa Mkydj lhy eksgj fd;k x;k FkkA ;g lgh gS fd izR;sd iSdsV ij ,d lhy yxkbZ Fkh ftl ij ih,l /kksjheUuk vafdr FkkA eky[kkuk esa tek djkus ls igys eky dks jhlhy ugha fd;k FkkA** 16. So far as the polythene bag is concerned, it is not found in the description of articles, given in the FSL Report Ex.P.27. The same is the statement of Girdharilal, PW 4 that the samples were first packed in polythene bag and thereafter in the cotton bag. This Girdharilal, PW 4, who took the sample has said that he did not sign in the Malkhana Register, while taking sample to F.S.L. and he said that the seal of the SHO, PS, Dhorimanna was there, as against the statement of Ramchandra, PW 5, who says that it was the seal of the Police Station, Dhorimanna. Goma Ram, PW 6, who accompanied the SHO, has said that the seal was of the SHO, Dhorimanna but Malkhana Incharge Kumer Dan, PW 7, has said that the seal of the SHO was there but he further said that the SHO did not deposit the sample seal in the Malkhana and used seal was deposited in an open condition. 17. 17. These uncorroboratrive statements about the seal as to whether it was of Police Station or of SHO of Police Station, Dhorimanna, non-resealing, non-deposit of sample seal in the Malkhana and depositing the seal in open condition, create doubt whether the seal was intact or not, especially when the polythene bag in which the sample was kept, was not found in the FSL Report and the recovered articles viz; six gunnybags marked as A-02 to F-02 have not been produced in the Court. 18. Learned Public Prosecutor has not been able to contradict the above fatal infirmities, pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants as referred-to above, in absence of which, I am of the view that though, in the present case, the provisions of Section 42 of the Act are not attracted, yet the non-compliance of Section 55 by not producing the seized articles in the court and the sealed sample taken to FSL in absence of polythene bags, is fatal to the prosecution for which the accused appellants are entitled to be given benefit of doubt and their conviction cannot be sustained on the basis of such infirmities. 19. Consequently, both the appeals are allowed. The conviction of appellants Guneshgar and Rukhmana Ram for the offence u/s.8/15 of the Act & their sentence of ten years R.I. and a fine of Rs.one lac & in default, to further undergo one year s S.I. passed by the Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Jodhpur by his judgment dt.17.7.06 is set aside. They are in jail, they shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.