Case Title:
Dilip & Anr Vs State Of M.P.
Date of Judgment:
24.11.2006
Bench:
S.B. Sinha
Markandey Katju
Parties:
PETITIONER – Dilip & Anr.
RESPONDENT - State of M.P.
Subject
In this case, an appeal was filed regarding the sentence passed by the High Court against the Judgment of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge.
Important Provisions
Section 8,18,42,50,57 of NDPS Act, 1985
Overview
- One Shri S.S. Tomar, the Officer inCharge of P.S. Kumbhraj, filed an FIR on 24.12.1996 that when he came out of the gate to arrest one Shivraj Meena, he observed two men coming out at a high pace in a scooter.
- They were brought to a halt. Dilip Singh and Ramsharan were their given names.
- A search was carried out on their person. Nothing was discovered, however, while searching the scooter, a black-colored liquid substance was discovered in six large plastic bags and one little plastic bag that was said to contain opium.
- The S.D.O.P. of Raghogarh, Shri G.S. Jadon, was allegedly alerted, and 5 kgs. 890 gms opium was allegedly discovered.
- They were apprehended right there on the spot. The search and seizure were vitiated in law, according to the learned Sessions Judge Guna, who held that required statutory conditions contained in Sections 50 and 42 of the NDPS Act were not followed. The prosecution's case was not supported by the seizure witnesses.
- The informant also failed to follow the NDPS Act's Section 57 because no accountable officer placed a seal on the seized samples. So, the sealing of the illegal materials was not done in line with the law.
- Dissatisfied, the State moved to the High court with an appeal, High court reversed the order and they were sentenced to ten years of imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1 lakh each, failing which they were sentenced to an additional two years of imprisonment.
Issues
Whether provisions contained in Section 57 of the NDPS Act are not mandatory.
Whether the conduct of the appellants in speedily crossing the road which aroused the suspicion of police officers was enough to show that they had knowledge that contraband was concealed in the scooter.
Arguments of the Appellant
There was no statement in the First Information Report indicating the provisions of Section 50 had been followed. The prosecution, on the other hand, submitted two notices marked Exhibits P10 and P11, which were stated to have been issued to the accused informing them of their right to be searched before S.D.O.P., a Magistrate, or a gazetted officer.
The learned Sessions Judge saw that there was no indication of the fact that he had reached an opinion that the scooter in issue contained any contraband in the aforementioned two documents. Furthermore, the time, date, name, residence, and age of the officer issuing the warning were not specified in the aforementioned two supposed notices. It had also gone unmentioned that the accused had been told about their legal rights.
Arguments of the Respondent
An improper search may not have a direct influence on the prosecution case, according to counsel for the State. When a police officer conducts a search or arrests a person in the normal course of an investigation into an offense or suspected offense as provided under the provisions of the CrPC, Section 50 of the NDPS Act is not invoked, and the question of complying with the requirements thereunder does not arise.
If any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance is found during the search or arrest, the police officer who is not enabled should notify the empowered officer, who should then proceed in line with the NDPS Act's provisions. If he is also an empowered officer, he must conduct the investigation in line with the other provisions of the NDPS Act from that point forward.
Judgment Analysis
- In this case, legal requirements were completely ignored. The prosecution's account of how the SHO discovered the appellants on a road near the police station is equally suspicious.
- Unfortunately, the High Court did not agree with the learned Sessions Judge's rationale. The High Court did not agree with the learned Trial Judge's findings that P.W.10 had prior knowledge.
- The High Court was hearing an acquittal ruling. It was therefore required to demonstrate that the learned Sessions Judge's findings were not legally tenable.
- It is commonly established that if two points of view are viable, the accused should be given the benefit of the doubt.
- We may recall that in Jagdish vs. State of M.P [(2003) 9 SCC159], a three-judge bench of this Court overturned a conviction in which panch witnesses disputed that the opium was searched and seized in their presence. We believe the High Court could not have dismissed the learned Sessions Judge's conclusions without considering the reasonings offered to it because it was dealing with an acquittal decision.
Conclusion
In this case, legal requirements were completely ignored. The prosecution's account of how the SHO discovered the appellants on a road near the police station is equally suspected. Unfortunately, the High Court did not agree with the learned Sessions Judge's rationale. The High Court did not agree with the learned Trial Judge's findings that P.W.10 had prior knowledge.In the given appeal the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal and the appellants were set at liberty because two views were possible from the given facts and in such a situation, the benefit was given to the accused.
To know more about NDPS Act, click here
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
