Mangilal S/O Balaram vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Virender Singh, J

Appellant is aggrieved by his conviction under Section 8(b) read with Section 15(c) of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NDPS Act') for having and transporting 123 kg poppy straw worth about Rs.25,000/- without any license. He is awarded 10 year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1 lakh and in default of payment of fine further to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year vide judgment dated 14th December, 2017 passed in Sessions Trial No.19 of 2010 by Additional Sessions Judge, NDPS Act, Jaora, District- Ratlam.

The prosecution had approached the Court with a statement that on 20th May, 2010 SI H.S. Sengar posted at Police Station-Kalukheda received a call that one Mangilal S/o Balaram Kumawat alongwith co-villager Mathuralal S/o Tarachand Mongiya is carrying sacks of poppy straw kept at cultivator attached with his new Farm Track Tractor bearing registration No. MP-43- AA- 3134 and going to deliver the same to some smuggler via Pingrala to Khodana Ranayara route and if a trap is laid, he can be nabbed. Mr. Sengar entered this information in Roznamcha after preparing memo before Punch Dhanpal Singh S/o Bhuwan Singh Rajput and Rameshwar S/o Ganeshram Balai. He was of the opinion that there was no time to obtain search warrant as it could have provided opportunity to the crooks to escape. He prepared another Panchnama and sent the same immediately to the S.D.O.P. Jaora through Constable 615 Tulsiram. He called force available at the police station and immediately proceeded to the place pointed out by the informer. He hid his vehicle under the cover of bushes alongside the road.

After some wait, he noticed the Tractor pointed out by the informer and asked the driver to stop the tractor. He noticed some sacks kept on and tied with the cultivator. They asked name and address of driver and his companion sitting on the tractor, who revealed their names as Mangilal and Mathuralal resident of Pingrala. S.I. H.S. Sengar informed them about the information received by him regarding the contraband and also about their right of search before any Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. A notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act was given to them. They both consented for the search by Mr. Sengar himself. Their consents were taken on record. As Mathuralal was illiterate, Mr. Sengar deduced his consent on memo and obtained his thumb impression.

After giving his search and search of his team members, he searched the appellants Mangilal and Mathuralal but nothing was found. Thereafter, they searched the Tractor and found two sacks of fertilizer containing 64kg and 59kg poppy straw respectively. He took out samples of 2-200 gm from each sack, sealed them and sealed the remaining content of the sacks. All the proceedings were documented. As Mr. Sengar was not having his own seal, the articles were sealed with the seal of Police Station. Tractor and cultivator were also seized. Both the persons present were arrested. Spot mp was prepared. Intimation of all the proceedings taken up on the spot was sent to S.D.O.P., Jaora. The raiding party came back and completed other necessary investigation at Police Station and filed the charge-sheet before the Court.

During the trial Mathuralal expired on 23.6.2011, therefore, the Trial Court dropped the proceedings against him and the judgment was passed only against the present appellant.

The appellant is charged, tried and convicted as stated in para 1 above.

The appellant has preferred this appeal on the grounds that the judgment of the learned Trial Court is contrary to the law and facts available on record. The procedure provided under Sections 42, 50, 52, 55 and 57 of the NDPS Act, 1985 has not been followed. The prosecution did not produce any evidence to establish that the seized article was such contraband, possession of which is prohibited under the NDPS Act. The prosecution could not prove that the appellant was properly apprised with his right of search before the Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate. A joint consent is produced by the prosecution, which cannot be considered as his consent for his search by the raiding party. The seized substance was never produced before the Trial Court during the trial, therefore, it cannot be held proved that the appellant was having any contraband in his possession. Independent witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. The Trial Court failed to appreciate the material contradictions, omissions and variations appeared in the statements of the official witnesses, therefore, the impugned judgment is not sustainable and the appellant is entitled for acquittal.

Learned Public Prosecutor has contradicted each and every grounds raised by the appellant regarding the statements of witnesses, particularly the statement of S.I. H.S. Sengar (PW-11), which is supported by witnesses, namely, Mohanlal Head Constable (PW-1) Mahendra Singh Constable (PW-5), Constable Gopal Singh (PW-9), S.D.O.P. R. P. Verma (PW-10) and ASI O. P. Yadav (PW-12) and is well corroborated by the panchnama Ex.P/1, report under Section 57 Ex.P/2, memo of secret information Ex.P/3, search warrant Ex.P/4, memo of interrogation Ex.P/5, intimation of right under Section 50 Ex.P/6, memos of consent Ex. P/7 and P/8, memo of search Ex. P/9, memo of search of tractor Ex.P/10, memo of identification of contraband Ex.P/11, memo of samples Ex.P/12, memo of sealing samples Ex.P/13, property seizure memo Ex.P/14, memos of arrest Ex. P/15 and P/16, photographs Ex.P/21 & P/22, letter to FSL Ex.P/25, its receipt Ex. P/23, its report Ex.P/26, covering letter Ex.P/27, return of article Ex.P/28, spot map Ex. P/24, memo under Section 52 Ex.P/29, letter of T.I. Ex.P/30, memo under Section 52A Ex.P/31, FIR Ex.P/32, Roznamcha Sahna Ex.P/32 to Ex.P/43, memo of resealing contraband Ex.P/43, entry of property register Ex.P/44C, Roznamcha Sahna Ex.P/44 to Ex.P/46, letter of Town Inspector Ex.P/45 and Roznamcha Sahna Ex. P/47 & 48. Dismissal of the appeal is prayed for.

I have gone through the entire evidence produced by the prosecution and its appreciation by the learned Trial Court.

Mr. Sengar (PW-11) has categorically narrated the facts in sequence since receiving the information up till the arrest of the accused persons, mentioning each and every step taken on the spot while conducting search or completing all the procedures including the pre and post search intimations to the Seniors. His statement is well supported by the witnesses who accompanied him and further corroborated by the documents mentioned in the preceding para pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor. All these on oath statements are well corroborated by the documents proved by the witnesses and have no inherent, intra or inter statement flaccidity. No flaw could be demonstrated by the appellant to disbelieve all this evidence; therefore, grounds taken by the appellant in this regard does not hold water.

Full focus or emphasis of the learned Counsel for the appellant is on the ground that the seized contraband was not produced before the Court during the trial and this is the admitted position. Now the question remains is as to what would be the effect of such non-production.

It is vehemently argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that this lapse goes to the roots of the prosecution case and vitiates the conviction of the appellant. This ground alone is sufficient to brush aside the entire prosecution case and to acquit the appellant.

In reply, learned Public Prosecutor refuted the claim of the appellant.

To buttress his contention, the learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra and another Vs. State of M.P. reported in [2004 (1) EFR 22] ; State of Rajasthan Vs. Parmanand and another reported in (2014) 5 SCC 345; Kishan Chand Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2013) 2 SCC 502 ; and the decision of Mahdya Pradesh High Court in the case of Raju @ Jitendra Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2013 Cr.L.R. (M.P.) 12.

The law emerges from all these judgments is that if in case neither the contraband nor the samples taken out from the substance is produced before the Court and explanation is also not given for this lapse, then it cannot be presumed that the procedure laid down by the Act, 1985 is complied with and in such situation the accused is entitled for acquittal.

But in the present case, samples taken out from the contraband seized from the possession of the appellant has been produced before the Court. Paras 7 to 11 of the statement of Seizing Officer Sub-Inspector H. S. Sengar (PW-11) reads thus:-

"7. उपकोषालय जावरा से सीलचपड़ी से सीलबंद अवस्था में सफेद कपड़े में बंद न्यायालय के हस्ताक्षरयुक्त जप्ती चिट लगी हई एक लोहे का चैकोर डिब्बा प्राप्त हआ। सीलचपड़ी से सिलाई के स्थान पर खोले जाने पर अंदर से एक चोकोर लोहे का डिब्बा प्राप्त हआ। लोहे के डिब्बे को खोले जाने पर अंदर से न्यायालय के हस्ताक्षरयुक्त माल जमा करने की चिट, दो खाकी रंग के एफ.एस.एल. की सील चपड़ी से सीलबंद पैकिट आर्टीकल ए1, बी1, दो सफेद कपड़े की थैली में सील चपड़ी से सीलबंद अवस्था में आर्टीकल ए2, बी2 व चार अन्य कार्यपालिक दण्डाधिकारी की सीलचपड़ी से सीलबंद व हस्ताक्षरयुक्त सफेद अन्य पैकिट प्राप्त हए। नोटः-2

खाकी रंग के पैकिट को सील चपड़ी के स्थान से खोले जाने पर अंदर से एक सफेद कपड़े की थैली जिस पर एक जप्ती चिट पुनः सीलबंद की आर्टीकल ए1 अंकित प्राप्त हई। थैली का मंह एक ओर से खुली हई अवस्था में होकर अंदर से एक अन्य सफेद कपड़़े की थैली जो सिलाई के स्थान पर सीलबंद अवस्था में होकर इस पर एक जप्ती चिट चस्पा की हई प्राप्त हई जो साक्षी के अनसार उसके द्वारा मौके पर आर्टीकल ए1 पर चस्पा की गई चिट है जिसके ए से ए भाग पर साक्षी स्वयं के बी से बी भाग पर साक्षी धनपाल, सी से सी भाग पर रामेश्वर के हस्ताक्षर है, डी से डी भाग पर आरोपी मांगीलाल के हस्ताक्षर है व आरोपी मथुरालाल का निशानी अंगूठा है। थैली का मुंह एक ओर से खुली अवस्था में होकर उसके अंदर एक प्लास्टिक की पारदर्शी थैली प्राप्त हई जिसे खोले जाने पर अंदर डोडेचूरे के टकड़े प्राप्त हए जो साक्षी के अनसार उसके द्वारा आर्टीकल ए में से निकाला गया नमूना आर्टीकल ए1 है जिसे न्यायालय द्वारा सविधा की दृष्टि से आर्टीकल ए1 अंकित किया जाता है।

नोटः-3

खाकी रंग के पैकिट को सील चपड़ी के स्थान से खोले जाने पर अंदर से एक सफेद कपड़े की थैली जिस पर एक जप्ती चिट पुनः सीलबंद की आर्टीकल बी1 अंकित प्राप्त हई। थैली का मुंह एक ओर से खुली अवस्था में होकर अंदर से एक अन्य सफेद कपड़े की थैली जो सिलाई के स्थान पर सीलबंद अवस्था में होकर इस पर एक जप्ती चिट चस्पा की हई प्राप्त हई जो साक्षी के अनसार उसके द्वारा मौके पर आर्टीकल बी1 पर चस्पा की गई जप्ती चिट है जिसके ए से ए भाग पर साक्षी स्वयं के बी से बी भाग पर साक्षी धनपाल, सी से सी भाग पर रामेश्वर के हस्ताक्षर है, डी से डी भाग पर आरोपी मांगीलाल के हस्ताक्षर है व आरोपी मथुरालाल का निशानी अंगूठा है। थैली का मुह एक ओर से खुली अवस्था में होकर उसके अंदर एक प्लास्टिक की पारदर्शी थैली प्राप्त हई जिसे खोले जाने पर अंदर डोडेचूरे के टकड़े प्राप्त हए जो साक्षी के अनसार उसके द्वारा आर्टीकल बी में से निकाला गया नमूना आर्टीकल बी1 है जिसे न्यायालय द्वारा सविधा की दृष्टि से आर्टीकल बी1 अंकित किया जाता है।

नोटः-4

सफेद कपड़े की थैली में सिलाई के स्थान पर सील बंद अवस्था में एक अन्य पैकिट जिस पर आर्टीकल ए2 अंकित है का प्राप्त हआ। जिस पर एक जप्ती चिट चस्पा की होकर जप्ती चिट के ए से ए भाग पर साक्षी स्वयं के बी से बी भाग पर साक्षी धनपरलसिंह सी से सी भाग पर साक्षी रामेश्वर व डी से डी भाग पर आरोपी मांगीलाल के हस्ताक्षर व आरोपी मथुरालाल के निशानी अंगूठा है। सफेद कपड़े की थैली को सिलाई के स्थान से खोले जाने पर अंदर से एक प्लास्टिक की पारदर्शी थैली प्राप्त हई। प्लास्टिक की पारदर्शी थैली को खोले जाने अंदर से मादक पदार्थ डोडा के हकड़े प्राप्त हए जो साक्षी के अनसार उसके द्वारा मौके पर आर्टीकल ए मेें से निकाला गया नमूना आर्टीकल ए2 है। न्यायालय द्वारा सविधा की दृष्टि से इसे आर्टीकल ए 2 अंकित किया जाता है।

नोटः-5

सफेद कपड़े की थैली में सिलाई के स्थान पर सील चपड़ी से सील बंद अवस्था में एक अन्य पैकिट जिस पर आर्टीकल बी2 अंकित है का प्राप्त हआ। जिस पर एक जप्ती चिट चस्पा की होकर जप्ती चिट के ए से ए भाग पर साक्षी स्वयं के बी से बी भाग पर साक्षी धनपालसिंह, सी से सी भाग पर साक्षी रामेश्वर व डी से डी भाग पर आरोपी मांगीलाल के हस्ताक्षर व आरोपी मथुरालाल के निशानी अंगूठा है। सफेद कपड़े की थैली को सिलाई के स्थान से खोले जाने पर अंदर से एक प्लास्टिक की पारदर्शी थैली प्राप्त हई। प्लास्टिक की पारदर्शी थैली को खोले जाने अंदर से मादक पदार्थ डोडा के टकड़े प्राप्त हए जो साक्षी के अनसार उसके द्वारा मौके पर आर्टीकल बी2 अंकित किया जाता है।

Thus, the ground taken by the appellants has no force.

It is also argued that the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act have not been complied with in the present case. My attention is invited towards notice given to the appellants informing them their right of making search before Magistrate or Gazetted Officer. It's a joint notice given to both the persons present on the spot. It is argued that joint notice is not valid. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Parmanand and another reported in (2014) 5 SCC 345. In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in case there was no individual communication of right under Section 50 of NDPS Act, then it is not proper. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the right was informed to the accused persons jointly and only one of them had signed his consent for the search to be taken by the officer present on the spot. But in the present case, though the notice is one or joint but the consent of both the appellants has been taken individually. This reveals from two consent memos Ex.P/7 and Ex.P/8, which bears individual signature and thumb impression of both the accused persons, and it is sufficient to show the proper compliance of the provisions of Section of 50 of NDPS Act.

Non compliance of Sections 42, 52 and 55 of NDPS Act have also taken as grounds for the acquittal by the appellant. Doubt expressed to the proceedings of Section 42 is that in Mukhbir Suchana Panchnama Ex.P/3 name of only one accused Mathuralal is mentioned, while Constable Mahendra Singh (PW-5) has admitted in para 2 of the statement that ASI Mr. Sengar has called him and informed that there is an information that Mangilal and Mathuralal both are carrying poppy straw. It is argued that this shows that Mukhbir Suchana Panchnama is a false document and cannot be relied upon and this shatters the case of the prosecution.

But this contention is misconceived and contrary to the record. Seizing Officer Sub Inspector Mr. H. S. Sengar (PW-11) has made it clear in very first para of his statement that as per the information received Mangilal was carrying the contraband with Mathuralal. Both the panchnamas Ex.P/1 & Ex.P/3 contains the same facts. The fact is not disputed that Mangilal was the driver and Mathuralal was the owner of the tractor and therefore, it is nothing but the way of expression that it is mentioned in the panchnamas that Mangilal is carrying the contraband and Mathura is sitting with him and does not give any benefit to the appellant. In the case of Madan Lal and others (2003) 7 SCC 465 all the persons found onboard were held guilty when the contraband was recovered from the car.

It is amply clear from the statement of ASI H.S. Sengar that procedure laid down in Section 52, 55 and 57 of the NDPS Act have been properly complied with in the case in hand. Use of seal of Officer-in-charge of the Police Station does not make the case of the prosecution. There is no evidence to make me believe that there was any tempering in the seal used to seal the article seized from the appellant. Even after adroit efforts, the learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any flaw, which makes the prosecution case doubtful.

After going through the evidence of the prosecution produced before the trial Court, I do not find any ground to interfere with the findings of the learned trial Court particularly on the grounds taken by the appellant. Having regard to the commercial quantity of the psychotropic substance seized from the appellant, sentence awarded by the learned trial Court also appears to be just and proper. The appeal preferred by the appellant is bereft of merits, deserves to be and is dismissed hereby.