Cr. A. No. 983/1993. Case: Parmeshwardas Vs State of M.P.. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)
| Case Number | Cr. A. No. 983/1993 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. Anand Nayak, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. P.C. Jain, Advocate For State |
| Judges | Sushma Shrivastava, J. |
| Issue | Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances (amdndment) Act, 2001 - Section 20 |
| Citation | 2008 (2) MPJR 125 |
| Judgement Date | August 27, 2007 |
| Court | High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India) |
Judgment:
Sushma Shrivastava, J.
Appellant has challenged his conviction and order of sentence passed by Special Judge, Narsinghpur in Special Criminal case No. 27/93; decided on 30.9.1993.
Appellant has been convicted under Section 20 of N.D.P.S. Act (hereinafter to be referred as Act) and sentenced to R.I. for one year with
fine of Rs. 200/- in default further R.I. for two months by the impugned judgment.
According to prosecution, on 17.3.1993, around 11 O' Clock in the morning. A.S.I. M.P. Mishra received a secret information at Police Station Saikheda, Narsinghpur that some person aged about 50 year wearing white Dhoti and Kurta was illegally possessing cannabis at the cattle market for its illicit sale. After recording the information in the Rojnamcha, ASI M.P. Mishra left for cattle market alongwith police force and reached there as about 11.15 A.M. and noticed that Appellant wearing white Dhoti and Kurta tried to run away after seeing the police squad. Appellant was therefore apprehended by the police and interrogated whereupon he revealed his name and address. Appellant was then searched by ASI M.P. Mishra after giving him an option to get searched before Gazetted Officer and cannabis weighing 80 grams was recovered from his person before the panch witness, which was seized by the police. Appellant and the seized article were then taken to the Police Station; Appellant was arrested and a case was registered against him at Police. Station, Saikheda and ws investigated. The seized article was sent for chemical examination. After chemical analysis, the article seized from the Appellant was found to be cannabis. Appellant was, therefore, prosecuted and tried for the offence under Section 20 of the Act.
Appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication.
The learned Special Judge, after trial found the Appellant guilty under Section 20 of the Act and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal.
Arguments of both the sides were heard. Record of the lower court perused.
The conviction of the Appellant is based mainly on the evidence of ASI M.P. Mishra (P.W. - 4). Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the trial court gravely erred in convicting the Appellant on the basis of sole testimony of ASI M.P. Mishra (P.W. - 4), which was wholly doubtful and unreliable. Learned Counsel for the Appellant further submitted that all the documents of search and seizure were prepared and manipulated at the Police Station and the Appellant was falsely implicated and there was no cogent evidence that the material allegedly seized from the Appellant was properly sealed.
Perused the evidence on record. ASI M.P. Mishra (P.W. - 4) deposed in his evidence that after receiving the secret information at police station, he had reached the cattle market Saikheda alongwith the staff and the panch witnesses and searched the Appellant after giving him an option to get him searched before the Gazetted Officer and recovered 80 grams of cannabis from the person of the Appellant, which was kept by the Appellant in a polythene bag underneath his Kurta, and then seized it and got it weighed. According to ASI M.P. Mishra (P.W. - 4), he also prepared the search memo (Ex. P-4), seizure memo (Ex. P-5) and weighing memo (Ex. P-6) and then took the Appellant and the seized cannabis to the police station and recorded the FIR (Ex. P-9). The seized article was also sent for chemical analysis and after analysis, it was found to be cannabis vide FSL report (Ex. P-12).
Now the panch witnesses Ramesh (P.W.-2) and Neit Singh (P.W.-3) have not supported any search or seizure from the Appellant and deposed to have signed all the document at the Police Station. Therefore, the evidence of ASI M.P. Mishra (P.W.-4), who is a Police Officer, has to be carefully scanned.
First of all, ASI M.P. Mishra (P.W.-4) admitted in cross-examination that the notice (Ex. P-3) giving an option for search before the Gazetted Officer was not addressed to the Appellant by name. He also admitted that entry in the Rojnamcha (Ex. P-14) relating to the entry of return (Vapsi Sanha) of ASI...
To continue reading
Request your trial