Partly allowed¶¶33

Ram Lal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC11 Jun 2024CRA/1121/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ramlal; NDPS Act Section 20(b)(i); ganja; 25 kg recovery; Narayanpur; Bastar; Section 50 consent search; Sections 42 & 50 compliance; hostile independent witnesses; FSL Raipur; pre-02.10.2001 amendment, no minimum sentence; sentence reduced to period already undergone; fine Rs. 7,000/- retained; Somaru Ram CRA No. 961/2001 (14.11.2019); Special Judge (NDPS) Jagdalpur; Special Case No. 20/2001; High Court of Chhattisgarh Bilaspur; CRA No. 1121 of 2002; 12.06.2024.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed in part: conviction of the appellant under section 20(b)(i) of NDPS Act maintained; jail sentence reduced to the period already undergone; fine of Rs. 7,000/- with default stipulation kept intact; appellant (already on bail) need not surrender, and if he has deposited the fine his bail bonds stand discharged. ¶¶33

Ram Lal Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Narcotics (NDPS) | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant's conviction under Section 20(b)(i) of the NDPS Act was valid, challenged on the ground of total non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Sections 42 & 50 of the NDPS Act and the hostility of independent witnesses. +1 more

¶¶23

Court's answer

Considering the oral and documentary evidence, the seizure of contraband ganja from the possession of the accused/appellant subsequently confirmed as ganja per FSL report (Ex. P-25), with the Trial Court having discussed compliance of the mandatory provisions by the Investigating Officer in Paras 34 to 38 of the impugned judgment, the Trial Court was fully justified in convicting the appellant under Section 20(b)(i) of NDPS Act.

¶¶28

Ratio / Principle

There is no illegality in the findings of the Court below on conviction; the evidence of Chitram Sahu (PW-4), Rajesh Kumar Dubey (PW-5) and Dr. M.K. Verma (PW-6) establishes the appellant's involvement in the crime beyond reasonable doubt.

¶¶29

Key takeaways

The offence was committed on 30/03/2001, i.e. prior to the amendment incorporated on 02/10/2001; therefore the old Act applies, under which no minimum sentence is prescribed for the above offence.ratio¶¶32
Following the approach already taken in Somaru Ram (supra), and considering the appellant's custody of 1 year, 5 months and 20 days, his age (48 years at the relevant time, about 68 at present) and the facts and circumstances, the ends of justice would be served by sentencing him to the period already undergone, while keeping the fine with default stipulation intact.ratio¶¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRA No. 1121 of 2002 (High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur; decided 12.06.2024; Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J.). Appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.10.2002 of the learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), Jagdalpur, in Special Case No. 20/2001, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 20(b)(i) of the NDPS Act and sentenced to R.I. 3 years plus fine of Rs. 7,000/- (default: additional R.I. 1 year), arising from recovery of 25 kg ganja from his house at village Timnar on 30.03.2001 after a Section 50 notice and consented police search. Counsel for the appellant did not press the conviction challenge (alleged total non-compliance of Sections 42 & 50 NDPS Act; independent witnesses hostile) and confined her plea to sentence, relying on Somaru Ram Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, CRA No. 961/2001 (decided 14.11.2019). The Court upheld the conviction (evidence of PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6; FSL confirmation), noting the offence preceded the 02.10.2001 amendment so the unamended Act applied with no prescribed minimum sentence; as more than 23 years had elapsed and the appellant (aged 48 then, about 68 now) had already undergone 1 year, 5 months and 20 days in jail, the appeal was allowed in part: sentence reduced to the period already undergone with the fine of Rs. 7,000/- and default stipulation kept intact.

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRA No. 1121 of 2002

¶5

Ramlal S/o Lakhamu, aged about 45 years, R/o Village Dogaripara Timnar, P.S. Narayanpur, District – Bastar, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---- Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh, Through : P.S. Narayanpur, District – Bastar, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

---- Respondent

¶10

For Appellant : Ms. Manisha Yadav, Adv. For Respondent/State : Mr. Sanjeev Pandey, Dy. A.G.

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board

¶12

12/06/2024

¶13

In pursuance to the order of this Court dated 24.04.2024, the appellant along with his counsel is present before this Court today.

¶14

His presence be marked.

¶15

The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.10.2002 passed by the learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), Jagdalpur, District - Bastar (C.G.), in Special Case No. 20/2001 whereby the learned Special Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under :

¶16

Conviction		Sentence
U/s 20 (b)(i) of	R.I. for 03	years with fine of Rs.
N.D.P.S. Act	7,000/- in	default of payment of
	fine amoun year.	t additional R.I. for 01

¶17

¶18

Brief facts of the case are that on 30.03.2001 subInspector Rajesh Kumar Dubey of Police Station Narayanpur received secret information that two persons with Ganja were travelling in a bus going from Kondagaon to Bhanupratapur. After recording the said information in the Rojnamchasanha he apprehended Nayan Kumar and Kishan and on interrogation, they disclosed that they had brought Ganja from Samaru Ram and Ramlal of village Timnar. On this sub-inspector, Rajesh Kumar Dubey along with police staff went to village Timnar after recording the departure in the Rojnamchasanha to the effect. Notice (Ex.P-1) under Section 50 of the Act was given to the accused before the search of his house that he may get the search through a Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate or by him (Rajesh Kumar Dubey). The accused consented to search by the police vide Ex. P-3. Thereafter, Sub-Inspector, Rajesh Kumar Dubey gave a search of himself and the police staff by the accused vide Ex. P-4. After a search of the house of the accused, 25 Kg Ganja was recovered vide Ex. P- 5. Identification Memo of the ganja was prepared vide Ex. P-7. Out of the said ganja 2 samples of 80 grams were drawn and sealed. The seized contraband was deposited in Malkhana through Head Constable, Chitram Thakur and acknowledgement was obtained vide Ex. P-16. The accused was arrested, FIR vide Ex. P-18 was registered under Crime No. 41/2001 and the information regarding the entire proceedings was forwarded to the Special Court, Jagdalpur and CSP, Jagdalpur. The samples were sent for chemical examination to FSL, Raipur from where the report Ex.

¶19

¶20

P-24 was received confirming the contraband to be ganja. After completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused/appellant under Section 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

¶21

So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 6 witnesses. The statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case.

¶22

After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.10.2002, learned Special Judge has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal.

¶23

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is total non- compliance of mandatory provisions of Sections 42 & 50 of NDPS Act. She further submits that all the independent witnesses have turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. She mainly submits that she is not pressing the appeal so far as it relates to the conviction part of the judgment and would confine her argument to the sentence part thereof only. According to her, the incident is said to have taken place in the year 2001, and thereby more than 23 years have rolled by since then. The appellant has already remained in jail for 1 year, 5 months and 20 days, and no useful purpose would be served in again sending him to jail, therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence

¶24

¶25

imposed upon him may be reduced to the period already undergone by Him. In support of her argument she placed reliance on the decision of this Court in a similar matter of Somaru Ram Vs. State of Chhattisgarh passed in CRA No. 961/2001 on 14.11.2019 .

¶26

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant.

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record including the impugned judgment.

¶28

The Trial Court has discussed in detail about the compliance of the mandatory provisions by the Investigating Officer from Paras 34 to 38 of the impugned judgment. Thus considering the oral and documentary evidence on record the seizure of Contraband Ganja from the possession of the accused /appellant which was subsequently found to be Ganja as per FSL report vide Ex. P-25, this Court is of the opinion that the Trial Court was fully justified in convicting the appellant under Section 20(b)(i) of NDPS Act.

¶29

Having gone through the material on record and the evidence of the witnesses Chitram Sahu (PW-4), Rajesh Kumar Dubey (PW-5)and Dr. M.K. Verma (PW6), establish the involvement of the accused/appellant in the crime in question beyond reasonable doubt. This Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the Court below as regards conviction of the appellant under Section 20(b)(i) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

¶30

In this case, the offence was committed on

¶31

¶32

30/03/2001 i.e prior to amendment in the Act which was incorporated on 02/10/2001 and therefore, the old Act would be applicable where no minimum sentence is prescribed for the above offence. In a similar matter of Somaru Ram (supra) this Court has already considered his matter and sentenced him to the period already undergone by him. In the instant case, the appellant has already remained in jail for 1 year, 5 months and 20 days, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the age of the appellant at the relevant time i.e. 48 years and at present he must be 68 years this court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him while keeping the fine amount with default stipulation as imposed by the Trial Court intact.

¶33

In the result the appeal is allowed in part . While maintaining the conviction of the appellant under section 20(b)(i) of NDPS Act, his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, the fine amount of Rs. 7,000/- with default stipulation imposed by the Trial Court shall remain intact.

¶34

The appellant is on bail. He need not to surrender. If the appellant has deposited the imposed fine amount then his bail bonds shall stand discharged.

¶35

Record of the trial Court along with copy of this judgment be sent forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any.

¶36

Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE

¶37

H.L. Sahu

Ram Lal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Lal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Jam Bai Patel and Anr. Vs Sant Kumar Mahilange and Ors.

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Bhagwati Paikra

Nirmal Kumar Dhruw Vs Smt. Alarmelmangai D.

Sudhir Kumar Singh Vs State of C.G.

Sushilchand Sahu Vs Urmila Kewart

Ram Lal Vs State of Chhattisgarh