Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1369 (GAU)

Rukovein Phuba v. State of Assam

2018-09-15

AJIT BORTHAKUR

body2018
JUDGMENT : Ajit Borthakur, J. Heard Mr. S Borgohain, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. D Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2. By this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.PC, the petitioner, Smti. Rukovein Phuba has prayed for setting aside and quashing the impugned order, dated 30.01.2018, passed by the learned Special Judge, Golaghat in Special (NDPS) Case No. 03/2017, whereby charge has been framed against the accused-petitioner under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act'), and also the entire proceeding in the aforesaid case. 3. The petitioner's case, in a nutshell, is that on 19.06.2017 at around 9:00 a.m., the Officer-in-charge of Golaghat P.S., Inspector Garga Narayan Bora, on receipt of a secret information to the effect that some persons were carrying suspected contraband 'ganja' by a night super bus from Dimapur to Tinsukia, he made a G.D. Entry being 790 and besides reporting the information to the higher authorities, detailed S.I. Jiten Hazarika to Rangajan for necessary action. Accordingly S.I. Jiten Chandra Hazarika, accompanied by Addl. S.P. and Deputy S.P. conducted search in the night buses near Rangajan Petrol Depot and recovered four packets containing 20 kgs of suspected 'ganja' from a night super bus bearing registration No. AS-01-DD-9395, carried by the petitioner and another. After observing necessary process of search, seizure, drawing of samples, arrest of the petitioner etc, S.I. Jiten Chandra Hazarika filed an F.I.R. before the Officer-in-charge of Golaghat Sadar P.S., whereupon Golaghat P.S. Case No. 391/2017 under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act. After completion of investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner and 3 (three) others. 4. The learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Golaghat, after hearing the parties and perusal of the materials on the case diary, framed charge under Section 20 (b) of the NDPS Act, vide the impugned order, dated 30.01.2018, against the petitioner and three others. 5. The petitioner has, inter alia, contended that on perusal of the charge-sheet along with the documents relied upon by the prosecution, does not prima facie, brings out a case against the petitioner and further there is clear violation of statutory and constitutional provisions. 5. The petitioner has, inter alia, contended that on perusal of the charge-sheet along with the documents relied upon by the prosecution, does not prima facie, brings out a case against the petitioner and further there is clear violation of statutory and constitutional provisions. In this regard, the petitioner filed a petition before the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Golaghat for discharge under Section 227 of the Cr.PC, but after hearing the learned counsel appearing for both the sides, rejected the petition. 6. Mr. Borgohain, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the learned court below failed to appreciate the fact that there are serious flaws and violation of the provisions of the NDPS Act relating to seizure, sampling and production of the contraband before the learned Magistrate. Mr. Borgohain further submits that the Investigating Officer in clear violation of Section 52(A) of the NDPS Act, which provides the prescribed procedure to be followed in respect of seizure, sampling and production of the contraband before the learned Magistrate. Drawing attention to the mandate of Section 52(A) of the said Act, Mr. Borgohain submits that the Investigating Officer did not at all comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 52 (A)(2) of the said Act which is time and again emphasized by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Mohanlal and Another, (2016) 3 SCC 379 and as such vitiated the entire proceeding. Mr. Borgohain, learned counsel for the petitioner therefore submits that in the light of the ratio laid in R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab, (1960) AIR SC 866 as quoted in Madhu Limaye vs. The State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551 , the facts and circumstances of the instant case falls within the specified 3rd category of cases, in which the inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of the Cr.PC can be successfully invoked and accordingly quash the charge and the entire proceeding initiated against the petitioner. 7. Mr. D Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that the FIR shows recovery and seizure of 20 kgs of suspected ganja and drawing of samples thereof for chemical examination in the FSL. According to Mr. Das whether procedural aspects prescribed in Section 52(A) of the Act was followed or not is the matter to be adjudicated during trial and to be proved by evidence. 1 and 2 submits that the FIR shows recovery and seizure of 20 kgs of suspected ganja and drawing of samples thereof for chemical examination in the FSL. According to Mr. Das whether procedural aspects prescribed in Section 52(A) of the Act was followed or not is the matter to be adjudicated during trial and to be proved by evidence. Mr. Das further submits that FSL report shows that the samples gave positive test for cannabis (ganja) and as such, the questions raised by the petitioner are related to disputed questions of facts and therefore, this court cannot decide the same in a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.PC. 8. While replying to the argument advanced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Borgohain, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his entire plea relates to what is revealed on the face of the record and the FIR of the case. Mr. Borgohain further submits that the detail guidelines have been laid in Mohanlal and therefore as the prosecution has failed to comply with the statutory provisions of law, this court may frame substantial questions of law and refer the matter to a larger bench if felt expedient. 9. I have given due consideration to the above arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the sides and perused the records. Perusal of the contents of the above Golaghat P.S., G.D. Entry No. 790, dated 19.06.2017 at 9:00 p.m., reveals that after receipt of the secret information, he reported the information to the higher police officials and accordingly, the Addl. S.P., Deputy S.P. and Others including the informant police officer, namely, SI Jiten Chandra Hazarika went to Rangajan area and conducted search in the Night Super buses plying from Dimapur to Tinsukia. In course of search they recovered and seized 20 kgs of suspected ganja carried in the bus bearing registration No. AS-01-DD-9395 by the petitioner and Others. Thereafter, weighing was done and samples of seized suspected ganja was drawn and sealed in presence of witnesses. In connection with the aforesaid incident SI Jiten Chandra Hazarika lodged and F.I.R. immediately after the formalities of search, seizure drawing of samples and arrest of the petitioner and Others were done. 10. Thereafter, weighing was done and samples of seized suspected ganja was drawn and sealed in presence of witnesses. In connection with the aforesaid incident SI Jiten Chandra Hazarika lodged and F.I.R. immediately after the formalities of search, seizure drawing of samples and arrest of the petitioner and Others were done. 10. In Mohanlal , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as herein below "No sooner the seizure of any Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic and control substances and conveyances is effected, the same shall be forwarded to the officer-in-charge of the nearest Police Station or to the officer empowered under Section 53 of the Act. The officer concerned shall then approach the Magistrate with an application under Section 52 A (ii) of the Act which shall be allowed by the Magistrate as soon as may be required under Sub-Section 3 of Section 52 A as discussed by us in the body of the judgment under the heading 'seizure and sampling'. The sampling shall be done under the supervision of the Magistrate as discussed the paras 13 and 14 of this order." According to Section 52-A(4) of the NDPS Act, samples drawn and certified by the Magistrate in compliance with sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 52-A above constitute primary evidence for the purpose of the trial. 11. In the case of RP Kapur, it has been categorically stated that "Ordinarily criminal proceedings instituted against an accused person must be tried under the provisions of the Code, and the High Court would be reluctant to interfere with the said proceedings at an interlocutory stage. It is not possible, desirable or expedient to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of this inherent jurisdiction. However, we may indicate some categories of cases where the inherent jurisdiction can and should be exercised for quashing the proceedings. There may be cases where it may be possible for the High Court to take the view that the institution or continuance of criminal proceedings against an accused person may amount to the abuse of the process of the court or that the quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice. There may be cases where it may be possible for the High Court to take the view that the institution or continuance of criminal proceedings against an accused person may amount to the abuse of the process of the court or that the quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice. If the criminal proceeding in question is in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by an accused person and it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the said proceeding the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceeding on that ground. Absence of the requisite sanction may, for instance, furnish cases under this category. Cases may also arise where the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; in such cases no question of appreciating evidence arises; it is a matter merely of looking at the complaint or the First Information Report to decide whether the offence alleged is disclosed or not. In such cases it would be legitimate for the High Court to hold that it would be manifestly unjust to allow the process of the criminal court to be issued against the accused person. A third category of cases in which the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be successfully invoked may also arise. In cases falling under this category the allegations made against the accused person do constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced in support of the case or evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. In dealing with this class of cases it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is manifestly and clearly inconsistent with the accusation made and cases where there is legal evidence which on its appreciation may or may not support the accusation in question. In exercising its jurisdiction under s. 561-A the High Court would not embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not. In exercising its jurisdiction under s. 561-A the High Court would not embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not. That is the function of the trial magistrate, and ordinarily it would not be open to any party to invoke the High Court's inherent jurisdiction and' contend that on a reasonable appreciation of the evidence the accusation made against the accused would not be sustained." 12. In the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, (1992) Supp1 SCC 335, the Supreme Court indicated the illustrative categories, which call for exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.PC. These are:- "(i) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (ii) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (iii) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (iv) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (v) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (vi) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (vi) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (vii) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." 13. Thus, taking into consideration of the above referred relevant judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act is mandatory in regard to seizure, sampling and production of the contraband and as such, this substantial question of law is in fact involved in the said proceeding. But the fact remains that in exercise of Section 482 of the Cr.PC, this court cannot act as a trial court or an Appellate Court to decide the disputed question of facts which can be decided on the basis of evidence to be led by the prosecution and the defense in the case. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhajanlal, this court cannot travel beyond what is disclosed in the FIR and the charge-sheet herein which, as a whole reveals cognizable offence. On the other hand, while framing charge, under Section 228 of Cr.PC, the Judge is not required to meticulously scrutinize the truth, veracity or effect of evidence, which the prosecution proposes to adduce nor to give weight to the probable defence of the accused. 14. Considered thus, this court is of the considered opinion that in the facts and circumstances appearing on record, the impugned order, dated 30.01.2018 whereby the charge has been framed against the petitioner and Others and further, the criminal proceeding in Special (NDPS) Case No. 03/2017 cannot be set aside and quashed. Page No.# 8/8 15. Consequently, the petition stands dismissed. 16. Return the LCR.