Dismissed

State v. Satyawan

Rajasthan HC6 Jul 2022CRLA/183/1991

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the State's criminal appeal against an acquittal under the NDPS Act. The Court held that the trial court had properly appreciated evidence regarding recovery, chain of custody, and witness contradictions, finding no legal or factual infirmity to warrant interference.

What did the court decide?

Criminal appeal dismissed. Pending applications disposed of. Case record sent back to the trial court.

State Vs Satyawan — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 183/1991

State

----Appellant

Versus

Satyawan

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Abhishek Purohit, PP Mr. N.K. Rai, Spl.PP For Respondent(s) : None present.

¶9

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶10

Judgment

¶11

06/07/2022

¶12

No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent.

¶13

This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellantState against the judgment dated 19.01.1991 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh (‘trial court’) in Sessions Case No.2/88, whereby the accusedrespondent was acquitted of the offence under Section 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ( hereinafter referred to as ‘NDPS Act’ ).

¶14

Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant-State submits that on 08.10.1987, while Shri Parmanand Acharya, the then S.I., Opium Department, alongwith his team, under the orders of the then District Opium Officer, were conducting checking at Naka No.2; at that time, a bus bearing Registration No.RNP 1878 (going from Ratlam to Jaipur) was checked and searched by the police team; in the said bus, a

¶15

(2 of 6)

¶16

[CRLA-183/1991]

¶17

person (accused-respondent) was sitting in a suspicious position, while keeping between his legs a briefcase. Upon being asked by the police team, he introduced himself as Satyawan s/o Shri Tekaram, r/o Kanakhedi, District Hisar i.e. the accused respondent.

¶18

3.1 Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that after procedural search, the police recovered from the possession of the accused respondent two white coloured bags ( rag-zine) containing contraband opium, which upon being weighed, was found to be 10.200 kilograms (5 kilos 300 gms + 4.900 kilograms); the accused-respondent was carrying such quantity of contraband opium without the requisite and legal authority letter/license; hence, the accused-respondent was arrested for the offence under Section 8/18 of the NDPS Act.

¶19

3.2 Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that after due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accusedrespondent before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh; wherefrom, upon committal, the case was transferred to the learned trial court for the necessary adjudication; upon the charge being denied by the accused-respondent he was made to stand the trial, and the trial was accordingly commenced.

¶20

3.3 As per learned Public Prosecutor, after such recovery and seizure, the contraband opium was sealed, as per the due procedure, which followed the arrest of the accused-respondent and registration of a case against him; whereafter, the samples were sent for the chemical examination, and after such investigation, the contraband article was identified as opium.

¶21

3.4 Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that the material witnesses, namely, PW-1 Jwala Singh, PW-3 Bheekam Singh and

¶22

(3 of 6)

¶23

[CRLA-183/1991]

¶24

PW-5 Vidhyaram have clearly and in unambiguous terms, supported the version of the prosecution. As per learned Public Prosecutor, howver, the then District Opium Officer, Shri G.N. Gurnani, under whose orders, the said Naka was put under check, could not have been produced for examination, on count of his demise, during the course of trial.

¶25

3.5 Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that the factum of recovery of contraband from the possession of the accusedrespondent and its consequential seizure was clearly proved before the learned trial court, followed by substantiation thereof by the required number of witnesses to such recovery and seizure, as mentioned above; thus, as per learned Public Prosecutor, there was nothing on record, which could be said to be detrimental to the prosecution case.

¶26

3.6 Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that during and after the search, recovery, seizure and sealing of the contraband opium in question, the process of law was duly followed, and thus, there was nothing on record before the learned trial court to show that the accused-respondents were wrongly implicated in the present case.

¶27

3.7 Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the learned trial court also erred in holding that in the present case, due compliance of the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act was not disclosed, as since the accused-respondents did not seek their production before the First Class Magistrate or Gazetted Officer for the purpose of recovery, therefore, non-compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act cannot be made out; further, the non-compliance of Sections 52, 55 & 57, as observed by the learned trial court in

¶28

(4 of 6)

¶29

[CRLA-183/1991]

¶30

the impugned judgment also cannot be made out in the present case.

¶31

3.8 Learned Public Prosecutor thus submits that from the aforementioned factual and legal backdrop, it is clear that the learned trial court has passed the impugned judgment of acquittal in favour of the accused-respondents without taking into due consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and without duly appreciating the evidence placed on record before it; thus, the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside.

¶32

After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that the learned trial court in the impugned judgment of acquittal has made due appreciation of the evidence placed on record before it; learned trial court also carefully examined the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, so as to adjudge their reliability and nonreliability, to draw a conclusion in regard to innocence or guilt of the present accused-respondents; not only this, the learned trial court before passing the impugned judgment of acquittal, has given thoughtful consideration to each and every aspect material to the case, coupled with issue-wise finding thereon.

¶33

The findings recorded by the learned court below is to the effect that :

¶34

5.1 The testimony of PW-7 Satyanarayan was that the contraband article upon being seized by Parmanand Acharya, the then S.I. was handed over to the then District Opium Officer, whereas Parmanand Acharya, in his testimony, has deposed that he had handed over the contraband article to PW-7 Satyanarayan, which makes the testimony of PW-6 Parmanand Acharya, doubtful.

¶35

(5 of 6)

¶36

[CRLA-183/1991]

¶37

5.2 As regards the compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, the learned trial court recorded that such compliance is not discernible from the testimony of PW-6 Parmanand Acharya (the then seizure officer) himself.

¶38

5.3 PW-10 Jagdish Chandra, the mautbir , who was examined as an independent witnesses, did not support the prosecution story.

¶39

5.4 Sualal, who at the relevant time, was the driver of the bus in question, and an independent witness, also was declared hostile. 5.5 The conduct of the accused-respondent, as put forth by the prosecution, that he himself was keeping the contraband with himself in the bus, which version also goes contrary to the criminal trend; as usually, the person who carries the contraband in a public transport, did not use to keep the contraband article with him, instead, he used to keep the same at some other place in the public transport.

¶40

5.6 There was also an interpolation being observed by the learned trial court in mentioning the weight/quantity of the contraband, and rightly so.

¶41

Thus, in view of the cogent findings, as recorded by the learned trial court in the impugned judgment of acquittal passed in favour of the accused-respondents, on each and every aspect relevant for the adjudication of the case before it, this Court finds that the said well reasoned speaking judgments does not warrant any interference by this Court, more particularly, when the learned Public Prosecutor could not point out any legal or factual infirmity in the said judgment.

¶42

(6 of 6)

¶43

[CRLA-183/1991]

¶44

Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith.

¶45

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

¶46

55-SKant/-

State v. Satyawan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State v. Satyawan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gordhan Vs State of Rajasthan

Het Ram and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan

Arjun Solanki Vs Mukesh Kumar

Reliance Industries Limited Vs State and Anr.

Pummi @ Pemina Ram Vs State

Balu Ram Vs State