Delve into the intricate legal analysis undertaken by the court in a recent case involving the NDPS Act. The case highlights various challenges and discrepancies in the prosecution’s narrative, shedding light on the importance of procedural adherence and evidence reliability in criminal proceedings. Follow along for a detailed exploration of the court’s evaluation of key aspects of the case.
Facts
- Accused appellants A-3 and A-4, as well as A-2, appealed against the conviction and sentence by the trial Court which was affirmed by the High Court in its judgment dated 10th November, 2022.
- A-2’s counsel raised several submissions to challenge the judgment seeking acquittal for the accused, including issues with the search and seizure process, lack of segregation of contraband from green chillies, non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act, contradictions in the sampling procedure, and discrepancies in the evidence related to sample collection.
- The trial Court originally convicted and sentenced the accused on 30th May, 2011, leading to the subsequent appeals and the final judgment by the High Court.
- The trial Court convicted the appellants under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act and sentenced them to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,00,000 each.
- During the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, A-1 (Mohd. Ishaq Ansari) passed away, resulting in the abatement of proceedings concerning him.
- The FSL report is considered honest in the eyes of the law as the sampling procedure was flawed.
- Three bundles/packets of ganja were allegedly seized from the vehicle, but seven packets were produced in court by the Investigating Officer.
- The samples were forwarded to the FSL after a significant delay, rendering the FSL report inadmissible due to missing link evidence.
- The accused denied the prosecution allegations but did not present any evidence in their defense.
- A part of the sample collected from the contraband was sent to the FSL, confirming it as ganja.
- Confession/interrogation of A-1 and A-2 led to the apprehension of A-3 and A-4.
- A charge-sheet was filed against the four accused after the investigation.
- A Gazetted Officer was called to the scene to assist, and three samples were drawn from each bundle of contraband.
- The accused were handed over to Sub-Inspector LW-10 for further action.
- Based on the proceedings, a complaint was lodged at the Golkonda Police Station and the investigation commenced.
Also Read: Landmark Legal Analysis on Cancellation of Bail Orders
Arguments
- Concurrent findings of facts by trial Court and High Court for convicting the appellants.
- The Court should be slow to interfere in such concurrent findings of facts under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
- Request to dismiss the appeals based on the above grounds.
- The prosecution did not establish that the contraband was recovered from the accused.
- Illegal and unsustainable conviction under Section 8 read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act.
Also Read: Refund of Excess Payments Legal Analysis
Analysis
- Multiple discrepancies in the prosecution’s case regarding the seizure and handling of ganja samples were highlighted.
- Critical witnesses, including the independent panch witnesses and the Sub-Inspector who prepared the samples, were not examined by the prosecution.
- Lack of evidence on safe custody of the samples raised doubts on the reliability of the prosecution’s case.
- Confusion regarding the number and handling of samples sent to the FSL undermined the prosecution’s narrative.
- Failure to follow proper procedure under the NDPS Act, including lack of documentation and permission for sample handling, weakened the case further.
- The FSL report was deemed unreliable and not admissible due to procedural lapses.
- Significant discrepancies in the evidence related to seizure, weighment, and handling of the contraband were noted, casting doubt on the accuracy of the prosecution’s claims.
- Overall, the prosecution failed to establish a clear and consistent chain of custody and evidence, leading to a lack of credibility in their case.
- Authorized officers can stop and search any animal or conveyance if they suspect it is used for transporting narcotics or controlled substances.
- Officers have the authority to search the conveyance and goods within it, and use lawful means to stop the animal or conveyance.
- If necessary, officers may resort to firing upon the animal or conveyance if other means of stopping it fail.
- The conviction of the accused appellants is illegal and suffers from perversity.
- The trial Court and High Court did not address the fatal flaw in the prosecution case.
- A-3 and A-4 were convicted without any evidence on record to hold them guilty.
- The prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused due to contradictions and unconvincing evidence of police witnesses.
Also Read: Quashing of Gangsters Act Proceedings
Decision
- Judgment dated 10 November, 2022 passed by High Court quashed and set aside
- Accused appellants acquitted of all charges
- Appellants to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case
- Appeals allowed
- Pending application(s) disposed of
Case Title: MOHAMMED KHALID Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA (2024 INSC 158)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001610-001610 / 2023
