Citation : 2006 Local Law (CG) 35
A court today upheld the conviction of a man found carrying a regzine bag containing nearly eight kilograms of ganja, rejecting his arguments about procedural lapses and shortcomings in the prosecution’s evidence. The appeal challenged a trial court’s verdict dated 13 February 2004, which had convicted the accused under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentenced him to four years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine.
The facts, as recorded by the Sessions Judge in Jagdalpur, are straightforward. On 17 October 2003, police acting on secret information intercepted the accused at Badedongar Triangle, Pharasgaon. Officers say they found a red-and-blue regzine bag on him. After offering the statutory options under Section 50, the station house officer searched the bag and recovered a ganja-like substance. A local shopkeeper was called to weigh the recovery; the panchnama recorded a total of eight kilograms, and two 50-gram samples were sealed for forensic analysis. One sample sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory returned a positive report for ganja.
At trial the accused pleaded false implication and did not lead any defence evidence. The prosecution presented five witnesses, including the arresting officer, the head constable who handled the exhibits, and the witness who performed the weighment. Based on their testimonies and the FSL report, the trial court convicted.
In appeal, the defence raised multiple grounds. Counsel argued that the notice issued under Section 50 of the NDPS Act did not show which option the accused chose, claiming the defect was compounded because the accused was illiterate and his thumb impression on an acknowledgement was taken later. The defence also pointed to an alleged inconsistency between the weighment panchnama and the shopkeeper’s testimony about where the weighing took place. Further, the defence highlighted that one independent witness named in the panchnama was not examined and that both sealed samples were not sent to the forensic lab.
The court carefully examined these contentions and rejected them. On the Section 50 point, the judge held that the statutory protection applies to searches of a person and not to searches of an object carried by the person. Since the bag itself was searched rather than the accused’s person, Section 50 did not apply to the facts of the case. The judgment relied on precedent that draws a clear distinction between a personal search and the search of an article found with the person.
The court also found the prosecution’s documentary trail reliable. The station house officer’s testimony about seizure, weighing and sealing of samples was supported by the malkhana entries and the head constable’s evidence about custody of the exhibits. The forensic report bore the specimen impression of the seal and matched the seal impression recorded by police, which the court saw as a strong assurance against tampering. Minor discrepancies in witness recollection did not persuade the judge to displace the core evidence that the seized material was ganja and that it was taken from the bag in the accused’s possession.
As to the non-examination of one listed independent witness, the court noted that another independent witness who did appear supported the prosecution’s account, and the absence of the additional witness did not fatally undermine the case. On the samples, the court accepted that at least one sample had been sent to the FSL and analysed, producing the positive report relied upon.
Balancing these facts, the court found the trial court’s conclusions reasonable and the conviction sustainable. The appeal was dismissed and the sentence affirmed.
This judgment illustrates the careful line courts draw between procedural safeguards and practical policing, particularly under the NDPS regime. It also underscores the importance of preserving chain of custody and contemporaneous record-keeping; where these are intact, courts tend to place significant weight on forensic confirmation and consistent documentary entries.
Case Details : Cr. Appeal No. 263 of 2004, Kartik vs. State of Chhattisgarh (09.03.2006)
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Sangita Mishra, Adv. For Respondents/Defendant: U.K.S. Chandel, Adv.
Acts/Rules/Orders:
Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 20(b)(ii)(B), Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 50, Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 55
Cases Referred:
Gurubax Singh v. State of Haryana 2001 Cri LJ 1166 (SC)
======
पृष्ठभूमि : मादक पदार्थ — दोषसिद्धि — अभियुक्त के बैग से अवैध गांजा की बरामदगी — मादक द्रव्य एवं मन:प्रभावी पदार्थ अधिनियम, 1985 की धारा 20(बी)(ii)(बी) के तहत दोषसिद्धि — दोषसिद्धि के विरुद्ध अपील।
प्रश्न : क्या मादक द्रव्य एवं मन:प्रभावी पदार्थ अधिनियम, 1985 की धारा 20(बी)(ii)(बी) के तहत दी गई दोषसिद्धि सही थी?
निर्णय : अदालत ने यह माना कि धारा 50 की अवहेलना का अभियुक्त का तर्क असंगत है, क्योंकि इस मामले में अभियुक्त के व्यक्तिगत शरीर की तलाशी नहीं ली गई थी, बल्कि उसके बैग की तलाशी ली गई थी। इसलिए धारा 50 लागू नहीं होती।
रिकॉर्ड पर ऐसा कोई प्रमाण नहीं था जिससे यह संकेत मिले कि जब्त किए गए नमूनों से छेड़छाड़ की गई हो।
यद्यपि स्वतंत्र गवाह की परीक्षा नहीं हुई, किंतु एक सार्वजनिक गवाह ने अभियोजन का समर्थन किया।
अदालत ने साक्ष्यों को विश्वसनीय पाया और दोषसिद्धि को उचित ठहराते हुए अपील खारिज कर दी।
निष्कर्ष : अभियुक्त की दोषसिद्धि और सजा बरकरार रखी गई।
