This case is about confirmation of neophyte parole details for an accused convicted under NDPS Act. It is held that only on basis of correct admission and search procedures.
Appeal allowed in part; conviction maintained; appellant sentenced to period already undergone in jail; bail bonds continued for six months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 514 of 2010
----Appellant
Versus
---- Respondent
For Appellant Shri J.K. Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent/State Shri Rahul Jha, Government Advocate.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Gautam Chourdiya Judgment on Board
03/11/2020
2
under the Bilaspur railway bridge having contraband (Ganja) in her bag. The said information was reduced to writing vide Ex.P-3 and thereafter without warrant search Panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P-4 . The police party along with the witnesses went to the spot, apprehended the accused/appellant, gave her notice vide Ex.P-5 under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and made her aware of her legal rights, on which she consented to be searched by the police officer vide Ex.P-2. Personal search of the police party and the witnesses was also made by the appellant vide Ex.P-1. On written consent being given by the accused/appellant vide Ex.P-2, search of the accused/appellant was made and Ganja like substance was recovered vide Ex.P-7. On weighment being done of the contraband, it was found to be 15 Kg vide Ex.P-6. Two samples, each of 50 gms, were drawn from the said contraband vide Ex.P-7. The samples were duly sealed. The accused/appellant was arrested vide Ex.P-8. FIR Ex.P-14 was registered against the appellant under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. Intimation of the entire proceedings was forwarded to Superior Authorities. The remaining contraband was deposited in Malkhana. Samples were sent to FSL vide Ex.P-9 for chemical examination and as per the report of FSL Raipur, the seized contraband was confirmed to be Ganja vide Ex.P-17.
3
prayed for trial.
4
is guilty of the said offence, considering the fact that the incident took place around 11 years ago, the age of the appellant at the relevant time was 40 years and she has no criminal antecedent, she has already remained in jail for 1 year, 6 months and 5 days, the accused/appellant be sentenced to the period already undergone by her.
5
under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and made her aware of her legal rights, on which she consented to be searched by the police officer vide Ex.P-2. Personal search of the police party and the witnesses was also made by the appellant vide Ex.P-1. On written consent being given by the accused/appellant vide Ex.P-2, search of the accused was made and Ganja like substance was recovered from her possession vide Ex.-7. On weighment being done of the contraband, it was found to be 15 Kg vide Ex.P-6. Two samples, each of 50 gms, were drawn from the said contraband vide Ex.P-7. The samples were duly sealed. The accused/appellant was arrested vide Ex.P-8. FIR Ex.P-14 was registered against the appellant under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. Intimation of the entire proceedings was forwarded to Higher Authorities. The remaining contraband was deposited in Malkhana. Samples were sent to FSL for chemical examination and as per the report of FSL Raipur, the seized contraband was confirmed to be Ganja vide Ex.P-17. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of this witness as he has remained firm during his cross-examination.
6
and PW-1 Manjulata Choudhary.
7
cannot be a reliable in a criminal case which will always depend upon facts of a given case. If testimony of such a witness is reliable, trustworthy, cogent and duly corroborated by other witnesses or admissible evidence, then statement of such witness cannot be discarded only on ground that he is a police officer and may have some interest in success of the case. Only when his interest in success of case is motivated by overzealousness to an extent of his involving innocent people, then, no credibility can be attached to is statement. Presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of a police officer as in respect of other persons and it is not proper to distrust and suspect him without there being good grounds therefor.
8
“10. There is no legal proposition that evidence of police officials unless supported by independent evidence is unworthy of acceptance. Evidence of police witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they belong to police force and interested in the investigation and their desire to see the success of the case. Prudence however requires that the evidence of police officials who are interested in the outcome of the result of the case needs to be carefully scrutinised and independently appreciated. Mere fact that they are police officials does not by itself give rise to any doubt about their creditworthiness.”
9
they were in any manner inimical to the accused or were interested in false implication of the accused in the said crime; their evidence appear to be trustworthy and supported by the documentary evidence on record as also from the evidence of independent witness. In these circumstances, there is no reason to suspect the credibility of these witnesses merely on the ground of they being the Police personnel.
10
already undergone by her.
Sd/Gautam Chourdiya Judge
Akhilesh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether conviction under Section 20(b) (ii)(B) of the NDPS Act stands affirmed despite independent witnesses turning hostile.
Whether the appellant should be released on consideration of time already spent in custody and sentencing principles.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Pramod Kumar V. State (GNCT) of DelhiReferred¶19
Pramod Kumar V. State (GNCT) of Delhi reported in AIR 2013 Supreme Court 3344 · Who else cites this
Baldev Singh Vs. State of HaryanaReferred¶19
Baldev Singh Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2015) 17 SCC 554 · Who else cites this
Rajesh Dhiman vs State of Himachal PradeshReferred¶20
Rajesh Dhiman vs State of Himachal Pradesh in (CRA No.1032 of 2013)
Gulshan Rana vs State of Himachal PradeshReferred¶20
Gulshan Rana vs State of Himachal Pradesh in (CRA No.1126 of 2019)
George Pon Paul Vs. Kanagalet and OthersRelied on¶23
George Pon Paul Vs. Kanagalet and Others, (2009) 13 SCC 478 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Pratima Nayak
State of Chhattisgarh
Gautam Chourdiya
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
