Allowed

Bipin Kumar Ramsagar Pandit @ Saxena v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC23 Sept 2013BA/1042/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted bail to an accused in a narcotics case where the investigating officer failed to record prior information in writing and forward it to the immediate superior as mandated by Section 42 of the NDPS Act. Doubts regarding procedural compliance and mismatches between the reported and seized substance weighed in favor of the applicant.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail in sum of Rs. 1,00,000 with one surety in like amount; conditions imposed including reporting and surrendering passport.

Bipin Kumar Ramsagar Pandit @ Saxena Vs the State of… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

Tilak 1/16 BA-1042-13

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION No.1042 of 2013

¶4

Bipin Kumar Ramsagar Pandit @ Saxena ... Applicant versus State of Maharashtra ... Respondent

¶5

Mr.Ayaz Khan i/b Ms.Zehra Charania and Ms.Yogini Kadam, Advocates for the applicant.

¶6

Mrs.G.P. Mulekar, APP for the respondent.

¶7

CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J

¶8

ORDER RESERVED : 23^rd AUGUST 2013.

¶9

ORDER PRONOUNCED : 23^rd SEPTEMBER, 2013

¶10

ORAL ORDER :

¶11

1 The applicant is the accused in C.R.No.135 of 2012 registered at the Anti Narcotics Cell, Mumbai. The allegation against him is of his having committed an offence punishable under

¶12

section 21 and 22 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, (hereinafter referred to as the N.D.P.S. Act) read with section 8(c) thereof.

¶13

Tilak 2/16 BA-1042-13

¶14

2 By the present application, he is seeking bail.

¶15

3 The prosecution case as reflected from the “Brief facts

¶16

of the case” in Column No.16 of the printed prescribed proforma of the charge-sheet is as follows:-

¶17

That, API Fulpagare attached to the Property Cell,

¶18

Crime Branch CID, received secret information at about 9.00 a.m on 26 June 2012 that a person by name Bipin Kumar Ram Singh Saxena, aged 38 – 40 years, residing at Oshiwara, Bhagat Singh Nagar, Goregaon (West) deals in psychotropic substance viz. Amphetamine white crystal powder and sells huge quantities thereof to his customers in Mumbai and its suburbs. That, on 26 June 2012, at about 14.20 hrs to 14.25 hrs, he would be coming in front of the gate of Pluto society, Bhagat Singh Nagar No.1, Opposite Oshiwara Bus Depot, Goregaon (West) for selling Amphetamine white crystal powder to his customers. That, on receipt of this information, API Fulpagare consulted his superiors and obtained instructions to get the information verified with the help of Anti Narcotics Cell, Worli Unit, and to take further action in the matter. API Fulpagare then along with his staff went to Worli Unit office of

¶19

Tilak 3/16 BA-1042-13

¶20

the Anti Narcotics Cell, and reported the matter. Under the guidance of the Senior Officers attached to the Anti Narcotics Cell, PSI Ghadge noted down the information in the Information Register maintained by the Worli Unit of the Anti Narcotics Cell, and personally reported the matter to Police Inspector Sangle. Information was also given by PSI Ghadge to Senior Officers of the Anti Narcotics Cell including Assistant Commissioner of Police. Thereafter a trap was laid. The police party and panchas kept a watch on the road in front of the gate of Pluto Society and when they found the applicant there, his personal search was taken. In the right hand of the applicant, there was a nylon bag in which amphetamine white crystal powder weighing 23.400 gms as also cash of Rs.1,000/- was found. The substance found with the applicant was seized under a panchnama after taking out appropriate samples therefrom. The sample of the seized property was forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory for Chemical Analysis, and after analysis, a report was received to the effect that ketamine and traces of methamphetamine were detected in the sample sent for analysis.

¶21

On completion of investigation, the applicant came to

¶22

Tilak 4/16 BA-1042-13

¶23

be charged for having found in possession of ketamine and traces of metamphetamine , weighing about 23.400 gms.

¶24

4 I have heard Mr.Ayaz Khan, learned counsel for the applicant and Smt.G.P. Mulekar, learned APP for the State. With their assistance, I have gone through the Bail Application and the annexures thereto. In view of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant, it was thought desirable to require the Investigating Agency to file an affidavit in reply, opposing the application, and Balkrishna Ghadge, Sub-Inspector of Police, Anti Narcotics Cell,- the Investigating Officer, has accordingly filed his affidavit in the matter. I have taken the contents of the said affidavit into consideration and also the case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant, as also the learned APP.

¶25

5 The main contention advanced by Mr.Ayaz Khan, learned counsel for the applicant is that in this case, there has been a violation of the provisions of section 42 of the NDPS Act. He submitted that API Fulpagare who received the information did not reduce it to writing and did not forward it to his immediate superior, thereby contravening the provisions of section 42 of the

¶26

Tilak 5/16 BA-1042-13

¶27

NDPS Act. Mr.Khan also submitted that it is settled legal position that violation of the provisions of section 42 will be fatal to the prosecution case, and that the breach or violation with respect to the relevant provisions which are held to be of a mandatory nature ought to be taken into consideration even while considering an application for bail. He submitted that there are a number of reported cases wherein the Superior Courts and even the Apex Court has taken the violation of the provisions of section 42 of the NDPS Act as a ground for releasing an accused on bail.

¶28

6 Smt.Mulekar, learned APP did not focus very much on the aspect of compliance with the provisions of section 42 of the NDPS Act. Her basic contention is that in this case, compliance with section 42 was not necessary or required at all. According to her, the provisions of section 42 of the NDPS Act had no application to the facts of the case as the provisions applicable would be that of section 43 of the NDPS Act. The substance of her contention is that since the provisions of section 43 of the NDPS Act apply to the instant case, there would be no question of applicability of section 42 of the Act.

¶29

Tilak 6/16 BA-1042-13

¶30

7 I have carefully considered this aspect of the matter.

¶31

8 Section 42 of the Act, inter alia lays down that when an

¶32

Officer referred to in sub-section (1) thereof, “has reason to believe from personal knowledge or information given by any person and taken down in writing” that any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance is kept or concealed in any building, conveyance or enclosed place, he may enter into such building, conveyance or on enclosed place and detain and search, and if he thinks proper, arrest any person whom he has reason to believe to have committed any offence under the NDPS Act. The section also indicates that the officer has to send a copy of the information which he has taken down to his immediate official superior. Section 43 deals with the power of an empowered officer to seize any narcotic drugs or psychotropic substance etc.in a public place, or in transit.

¶33

9 The contention of the learned APP is that since in this case, the seizure has been made from a public place i.e. on a road, the provisions of section 43 were applicable, and consequently, the provisions of section 42 were not applicable. The learned APP based her contentions primarily on the observations made by Their

¶34

Tilak 7/16 BA-1042-13

¶35

Lordships of the Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Jarnail Singh & Ors, 2004 SCC (Cri.) 1571 . Indeed, the observations made in the said judgment indicate the view of Their Lordships that if a public conveyance is searched in a public place, the officer making the search is not required to record his satisfaction as contemplated under section 42 of the Act.

¶36

The learned APP also placed reliance on a decision rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, wherein a view that provisions of section 42 of the NDPS Act would be applicable only when search, seizure and arrest is to be effected without a warrant or authorization in any building, conveyance or enclosed place and that, if such places are not to be entered into and searched, the provisions of section 42 of the Act will not be applicable.

¶37

The learned APP also relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court of India in Union of India Vs. Major Singh & ors, 2006 (9) SCC 170, wherein while relying on the decision in Jarnail Singh's case (supra), it was observed that since the search in that case was made of a public conveyance at a public place between

¶38

Tilak 8/16 BA-1042-13

¶39

sunrise and sunset, the provisions of section 42(2) of the Act had no application.

¶40

Lastly, the learned APP placed reliance on another decision of the Supreme Court of India in Ravindran John Vs. Superintendent of Customs 2007(3) SCC Cri.189, in which again, a similar view i.e. that as the arrest and seizure had taken place at a bus stand, the case was covered by section 43 of the Act which did not require information to be taken down in writing.

¶41

10 As against this, Mr.Khan submitted that there are authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court of India itself, which make it clear that where an arrest and seizure takes place pursuant to any information received, the provisions of section 42 would apply irrespective of whether the arrest and seizure is to be effected from a public place or otherwise.

¶42

11 It is not necessary to refer to all the cases cited by Mr.Khan. It is sufficient to take a note only of a few of them. In Jayantilal Vs. State of Maharashtra 2001(5) BCR 908, same contentions about the scope and ambit of the provisions of sections

¶43

Tilak 9/16 BA-1042-13

¶44

42 and 43 of the Act, as have been raised by the learned APP in the present case, fell for consideration. In that case, a learned Single Judge of this Court noticed two conflicting decisions of this Court – one in Lungura Tariram Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra 2000 (Supp) Bom.C.R. 128 , wherein a view was taken that since in pursuance of prior information, the accused were found in possession of charas at the S.T. Stand Pune, which was a public place as contemplated by section 43 of the NDPS Act, it was not necessary to comply with the provisions of section 42 thereof, in terms that the information had to be recorded in writing and its copy sent to the official superior , and the other in the case of Bindarsingh Vs. State of Maharashtra 1999(1) Mh.L.J. 643 , wherein it was laid down that even if the information related to recovery of a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance from a public place, it was obligatory to comply with section 42 of the Act, and to record the information in writing and to send its copy to the official superior . The learned Single Judge referred the following question for determination by a larger Bench.

¶45

“ Whether in respect of an offence under the NDPS Act, it is necessary for an

¶46

Tilak 10/16 BA-1042-13 empowered Officer to comply with the provisions of section 42 when the information received by him is regarding the commission of an offence in a public place of the like mentioned in the explanation to section 43.

¶47

12 The Full Bench, after carefully considering the decisions of the Supreme Court of India in Abdul Rashid Mansuri Vs. State of Gujarat 2000(5) Bom.Cri.Cases SC 442, and in the case of Koluttumottil Razak Vs. State of Kerala, 2000(4) 465, and some other decisions of the Supreme Court of India concluded “ that in respect of an offence under the NDPS Act, it is necessary for empowered officer to comply with the provisions of section 42, even when the information received by him is regarding commission of an offence in a public place of the like mentioned in the explanation to section 43.

¶48

13 Apart from this, Mr.Khan also referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court of India in Sajan Abraham Vs. State of Kerala, AIR 2001 Supreme Court of India 3190, Beckodanm Abdul Rehman Vs. State of Kerala, AIR 2002 Supreme Court of India 1810, Union of India Vs. Major Singh & ors, 2006(9) SCC

¶49

Tilak 11/16 BA-1042-13

¶50

170, Union of India Vs. Bal Mukund 2009 All.M.R(Cri) 1570 (Supreme Court of India), State of Rajasthan Vs. Shanti (2009) 12 SCC 400, and contended that in all these cases though the arrest, search and seizure had taken place in a public place, provisions of section 42 was held to be applicable.

¶51

14 Indeed, it appears that where an empowered officer is acting on information, the provisions of section 42 of the Act would come into play. In the case of Jarnail Singh (supra) on which reliance has been placed by the learned APP, the seizure was not pursuant to any information that had been received. The seizure was effected from a tanker while the officers were on patrolling duty. Similarly, in the case of Major Singh (supra), the reported judgment does not indicate that officers were acting pursuant to any information that had been received. Reliance was placed on the decision in Jarnail Singh’s case (supra) , where, as aforesaid, the seizure was not pursuant to any information. It is only in the case of Ravindran (supra) that a view that section was not attracted, as seizure had taken place on a public road was taken, but the same has been taken without referring to the previous judgments of the Supreme Court of India itself, and the view is in conflict with the

¶52

Tilak 12/16 BA-1042-13

¶53

view taken by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court of India in several other cases, some of which have been referred to earlier.

¶54

15 A perusal of the decided authorities indicates that section 42 and 43 operate on different planes and that where an officer is acting on information , the provisions of section 42 would

¶55

be applicable irrespective of whether the information is in respect of the commission of an offence in a public place of the type mentioned

¶56

in the explanation to section 43 . Whether the provisions of Section 42 would apply, does not depend on whether the search and seizure is effected or to be effected, from a public place of the type mentioned in the explanation to Section 43, but on whether the officers are acting on information. Whether the empowered officer/s is/are acting on prior information, the provisions of Section 42 would come in play and consequently the officer receiving the information must necessarily take it down.

¶57

16 This being the position, the facts of the case may now be examined. Admittedly, API Fulpagare did not himself reduce the information received by him in writing. He adopted a rather unusual procedure of approaching the Anti Narcotic Cell office

¶58

Tilak 13/16 BA-1042-13

¶59

where the information was got reduced to writing by PSI Ghadge. It is the superior officer of PSI Ghadge who was informed about the information, and not the superior officer of API Fulpagare. Whether this would amount to compliance with the provisions of Section 42, is, - to say the least – is doubtful. Therefore, there exits a doubt about the compliance with the provisions of section 42 of the NDPS Act, and though such doubt can be fully and finally resolved only during the trial, the fact that there exists such a doubt, however, weighs in favour of the applicant for the time being.

¶60

17 Apart from this, the fact that the substance found with

¶61

the applicant was thought to be amphetamine, and that the information was categorically about amphetamine; but the sample thereof was actually found to be containing ketamine and traces of methamphetamine , is significant.

¶62

18 Mr.Khan also submitted that the statements of the panchas recorded during investigation indicate that they were called for panchnama at about 9.15 a.m. by policemen attached to Anti Narcotic Cell. He submitted that as per the material in the charge-sheet, by that time, API Fulpagare had not even reported to

¶63

Tilak 14/16 BA-1042-13

¶64

the Anti Narcotic Cell, Worli Unit, which time according to API Fulpagare, was of about 9.30 p.m.. Thus, his contention is that, going by the version in the charge-sheet, the panchas were approached and called at the office of the Anti Narcotic Cell even before API Fulpagare had gone there, and given the requisite information pursuant to which the trap is supposed to have been laid. Mr.Khan therefore submitted that this is a suspicious feature of the case of the Investigating Agency.

¶65

19 In this regard, the affidavit in reply filed by PSI Ghadge mentions that a typographical mistake has occurred in the statements of panch witnesses, and that actually it should have been “11.15”. According to him, “9.15” has been wrongly mentioned in place of “11.15”. In support of this claim i.e. of there being a typographical error, a copy of certain entries in the station house diary of the Anti Narcotic Cell, is sought to be relied upon. Indeed, it is possible that it is a typographical mistake, but what needs to be considered is that a similar typographical mistake occurs in the statement of the other panch also. Even on the basis that it is a typographical mistake, some questions which would need clarification from the prosecution would arise in the case, and in

¶66

Tilak 15/16 BA-1042-13

¶67

any case, whether or not, it is indeed a typographical mistake and further, even if it is so, what inferences can flow from the occurrence of such a mistake, would need serious consideration.

¶68

20 It is also of some relevance that though the chargesheet indicates that the applicant came to the place where the trap was laid, it does not indicate the direction from which he came.

¶69

Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, this appears to be a case where there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is not guilty of the alleged offence.

¶70

21 The applicant is in custody since 26 June 2012. There are no antecedents. The trial has not yet commenced.

¶71

22 Under the circumstances, I think it fit to release the applicant on bail.

¶72

23 Appropriate conditions can be imposed upon the applicant to make it unlikely that he would commit any offence while on bail.

¶73

BA-1042-13

¶74

Tilak 16/16

¶75

The application is allowed.

¶76

Applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the sum

¶77

of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh Only) with one surety in like amount, on the following conditions :-

¶78

(a) The applicant shall report to the office of Anti Narcotics Cell,

¶79

Worli Unit between 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. on every Monday, till the disposal of the case against him.

¶80

(b) The applicant shall file with the Investigating Agency his residential address where he would be staying, within a period of one week after release. The applicant shall inform the change, if any, in his residential address to the Investigating Agency, forthwith.

¶81

(c) The applicant shall surrender his Passport to the Investigating Agency within a period of one week after release. In case the applicant does not hold any passport, he shall file a statement in writting to that effect with the Investigating Agency.

¶82

The application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶83

(ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J)

Bipin Kumar Ramsagar Pandit @ Saxena v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bipin Kumar Ramsagar Pandit @ Saxena v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sulbha Jagdish Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Kamrunbee Shaikh Rafik and Anr. Vs Shaikh Rafik Shaikh Latif

Gazi Abdul Karim Gazi Hasan Miyan Vs Shaikh Rafiya Described Herself as Shaikh Fariya Gazi Abdul Karim

Anil Ranchod Chaudhari and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Bhagwanta Bhau Dhamane Vs the State of Maharshtra

Pravin Santosh Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.