Possession and trafficking of narcotics

Seal parcel number column was vacant in the report as well as in column of letter number crime number was shown, date was not given

Sample was sent with delay of three days

Prosecution had not succeeded in establishing safe transmit after three days by detailing safe custody thereof during such period

Legally the defective Chemical Report coupled with failure to establish safe transmit of sample/property was sufficient to record acquittal, however, the record also showed that prosecution case was that they caused raid at a gambling party which was a house and recovered a suspected shopper which was lying adjacent to the accused hence constructive possession was lacking in the case as well as prosecution had failed to substantiate that the place was owned by the accused

Prosecution case was not free from doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed.

Report of Chemical Analysis could only determine status of sample hence burden to establish safe custody from time of its recovery till its receipt in the office of Chemical Analyzer was on the prosecution.

According to the prosecution the accused pointed out another truck from where certain narcotics were recovered and three persons were arrested

In the FIR it was indicated that the ANF officials were already in the knowledge of the narcotics in the said truck, therefore, any new fact was not discovered on the pointation of the accused

As far as applicability of S. 15 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 was concerned, the trial Court, after recording of evidence, would determine as to whether the said offence was attracted or not

Case of the accused called for further inquiry falling under subsection (2) of S. 497, Cr.P.C.

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed and accused was released on bail.

No connection was found between the said vehicle and the accused and nothing was recovered either form possession of accused or on his pointation

Question as to whether the accused, who was not the driver of the vehicle, had conscious knowledge of the narcotics concealed in the vehicle needed serious consideration, which shall be determined by the Trial Court after recording evidence

In the circumstances, case against the accused called for further inquiry falling within the ambit of S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed, and accused was allowed bail.

In the present case, there was 2 to 3 days delay in sending the recovered narcotics for chemical analysis, however, such delay had been explained in the evidence

Rules as to when material was to be sent for chemical examination were directory and not mandatory

Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

Evidence showed that no private person was ready/prepared to become mashir at the time of arrest and recovery despite being asked

Even otherwise S. 103, Cr.P.C., was excluded for offences falling under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, by virtue of S. 25 of the Act

Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

Prosecution case was that 25 kilograms of heroin narcotic contraband stuff was recovered from the vehicle of accused persons

Record showed that the accused were caught red handed with the narcotics by the police whose evidence fully corroborated in all material respects

No enmity had been suggested against any of the police witnesses

Spy information about the type of car and its registration number and its route fully corroborated the prosecution case

First Information Report was also registered with promptitude giving no time for concoction

Statements under S. 161, Cr.P.C. were recorded promptly

No major contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses was found

Narcotics were recovered from the front seat of the car where one co-accused was sitting whilst the other co-accused was driving the vehicle and as such accused had actual knowledge of the narcotics which were being transported

Car was recovered along with its key and the narcotics

Circumstances suggested that it would be extremely difficult to foist such a large amount of heroin being in total 25 kilograms

Defence objected that the Chemical Examiner was not qualified to carry out the chemical examination of the recovered heroin and as such the chemical report could not be safely relied upon

Chemical Examiner had explained that he was more than qualified to carry out the chemical test and that all necessary protocols were applied and that the chemical report was positive

Recovered narcotic was kept in safe custody from the time of their recovery to the time when they were taken for chemical analysis and no suggestion of tampering with the same had even been made

Prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt against the accused persons, in circumstances

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Prosecution case was that 91 packets of charas each weighing one kilogram, total weighing 91 kilograms were recovered from the secret cavities installed in the floor of truck of accused

Out of recovered charas, 20 grams from each packet was separated for chemical analysis

Record showed that complainant in his examination-in-chief claimed that he knew the accused previously, but surprisingly the final report was submitted against the accused in S. 512, Cr.P.C. without describing any effort of arrest of the accused

Such attitude on part of the police was quite strange and even was against the implied duties

In the present case, the identification of the accused was based on hearsay evidence and the same did not come under the definition of "res-gestae" which required direct evidence

Such identification of the accused was not reliable

Investigating Officer deposed that he handed over the case property and samples parcels to the Moharrar at the police station

Moharrar in his examination-in-chief acknowledged only receiving of 91 sample parcels from the Investigating Officer

Deposition of Moharrar was silent with regard to receiving of case property or its safe custody

Meaning thereby, the case property had not been kept in Malkhana in safe custody, as such the safe custody of case property could not be proved

Prosecution had tendered in evidence copy of report of Chemical Examiner instead of original one

No explanation on the record was available as to why the original was not produced

Author of the said report had also not been produced before the Trial Court

Truck had not been produced before the Trial Court

Circumstances established that prosecution case was highly doubtful and based on un-natural and unbelievable story

Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court, in circumstances.

Inconsistencies and contradictions with regard to the deposit of the parcels of the samples, remaining recovered contraband and time of reporting incident were apparent

From the time of the seizure till the deposit of parcels of samples and remaining contraband in the State Ware House, it was not established as to where those were laid or handled by how many people and in what ways

Mere oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses did not discharge the heavy burden of responsibility, which lay on the prosecution

Prosecution had not been able to prove safe custody of the recovered substance through material and cogent evidence

No evidence was available to connect the report of Chemical Examiner with the substance seized from the possession of the accused

Said fact alone created a ground to believe that the parcels of sample and case property were not kept in safe custody and the claim of the prosecution that the case property was not tampered with was doubtful

Moharrar/incharge of the Ware House as well as the person who deposited the sealed parcel of the samples with the office of the Chemical Examiner had not been examined by the prosecution

In absence of deposition by the moharrar/incharge of the Ware House to whom sealed parcel of sample and remaining contraband was handed over for keeping in safe custody and the person who carried the sealed parcel of the sample to the Chemical Examiner to the effect that the parcel of the sample remained intact and had not been tampered with, conviction by the Trial Court was liable to be set aside

Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court.

Area from where the accused was apprehended stated to be thickly populated area but police officials did not call for any independent and respected person of the locality to witness the recovery proceedings

Prior to the lodging of FIR, father of the accused had filed a direct complaint against the police officials as well for protection against the highhandedness of the police, therefore, false implication of the accused could not be ruled out

Every accused would be presumed to be blue-eyed boy of law until and unless he was found guilty of the charge

Meagre quantity of heroin had been shown to have been recovered from the possession of the accused which did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.

Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.

Record showed that alleged incident took place in a populated area but prosecution had not bothered to cite any independent person from the locality to witness the event

Chemical report was not available in the file to ascertain whether the material allegedly recovered from the accused was in fact "Charas" or otherwise

All prosecution witnesses were police officials, therefore, there was no possibility of tampering the evidence at the hands of accused

Accused was behind the bars since his arrest; trial had not commenced

Accused had made out a case for grant of bail

Bail was allowed, in circumstance.

Accused sought bail on the ground of delay in conclusion of trial despite High Court's direction to conclude the matter within two months

No private witness had been associated despite the place of incident being a busy place which made the case of accused that of further inquiry

Accused was in custody for the last one year but as per progress report submitted by the Trial Court only charge had been framed against him

Co-accused had been granted bail by the Trial Court

Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.

Prosecution case was that while intercepting a passenger vehicle, four packets charas, each weighing one kilogram, totalling four kilograms were recovered from a gas heater lying near the accused-petitioner's seat

Accused-petitioner claimed its ownership and on cursory interrogation disclosed about concealment of narcotics in it

Record showed that the alleged recovery had not been effected from direct/personal possession of the accused-petitioner rather from a gas heater

In absence of recovery of travelling ticket of the accused-petitioner in the said vehicle, statement of driver, conductor, and any passenger as well as any proof about the ownership of the heater, nexus of the accused-petitioner with the alleged recovered narcotic was yet to be determined after recording evidence

Such circumstances required further probe into the guilt of accused-petitioner

Accused-petitioner was therefore admitted to bail in circumstances.

Case was being adjourned for the last more than two years on account of prosecution which was not examining the available prosecution witnesses

Record showed that twenty-one times the case was adjourned for recording prosecution evidence and only for two times the case was adjourned due to the absence of defence counsel

No strong reason was available to withhold the concession of bail, in circumstances, when the delay in conclusion of the trial was not on the part of accused

Bail was allowed in circumstances.

Despite lapse of more than two months report of Government Analyst was awaited; without which, nature of recovered substance could not be exactly determined

Recovery and search proceedings were also conducted by C.I.A. Staff in violation of S.156, Cr.P.C.

Such fact alone was not sufficient to shatter the prosecution case, but all such discrepancies were sufficient to bring the case of accused within the ambit of further inquiry

Mere levelling of allegations of heinous offence, was not sufficient to keep accused behind the gallows

Once accused had succeeded to establish that his case called for further inquiry and probe, then rigours contained in S.51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 would not be attracted and accused could not be kept behind the bars

Accused was first offender having no criminal history; he was arrested on 12-4-2017 and since then was behind the bars awaiting trial, conclusion of which was not in sight

Illegality committed by the complainant, made the case a fit one of further inquiry

Accused was admitted to post arrest bail, in circumstances.

Sub-Inspector (C.I.A. Staff) along with the other Police Officials had conducted raid and allegedly recovered three packets containing charas each weighing 1000 grams

Under subsection (1) of S. 156, Cr.P.C., the power to investigate a cognizable offence had been conferred on any Officer Incharge of Police Station having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such Police Station

Crime Investigation Agency (C.I.A.) personnel, had no power to investigate a cognizable offence

Conduct of Sub-Inspector of C.I.A. staff was illegal as he had no power to investigate the said case

"Central Intelligence Agency (C.I.A.)", was one of the preventive and detector organizations created under Chapt. XXI of the Police Rules, 1934 and was established in order to assist the Superintendent of Police and his supervising staff in co-ordinating prevention and detective work of the District Police

No justification existed for S.I./C.I.A. to pre-empt the functions of the area Police

Criminal Investigation Agency (C.I.A.) personnel were not empowered to investigate the matter.

Prosecution case rested upon the evidence of Police Officials, no question therefore, would arise for tampering of their evidence at the hands of accused

Case of prosecution rested upon evidence of Police Officials, their evidence was required to be minutely scrutinized at the time of trial as to whether the offence as alleged in the FIR was committed by accused in a manner as narrated by the complainant or otherwise

Nothing was on record to show that accused was a previous convict or had been arrested in a case of similar nature in the past

Complainant/Sub-Inspector of Police had conducted investigation

Contention of accused was that investigation by said police official could not be safely relied upon

Evidence of complainant Police Official, who was also Investigating Officer, though was admissible, yet for safe administration of justice, it was incumbent upon complainant to hand over the investigation of the case to any disinterested Police Official so that nobody could raise finger upon the investigation of Police Official

Complainant, was not attending the court although non-bailable warrants had been issued against him; while accused was being regularly produced before the Trial Court by the jail authorities

Conclusion of trial was not at sight

Two accused from whom 1480 grams of charas each was recovered had been granted bail by the Trial Court

Case of accused being on the same footing, he was entitled for same treatment

Accused after having made out his case for grant of bail, was admitted to bail, in circumstances.

Neither the recovery memo nor the FIR contained the seat numbers and even no tag or documentary evidence had come on record connecting the accused with the said bags

Mere presence of the accused persons in the passenger bus or recovery of bags beneath their seats was not enough to fix the responsibility upon the accused persons for transporting huge quantity of narcotics

Prosecution had not established physical and conscious possession on the part of the accused

Circumstances of the case cast reasonable doubt about the veracity of the prosecution case, benefit of which would resolve in favour of accused persons

Appeal was allowed and conviction and sentences recorded by Trial Court were set aside.

Prosecution witness had alleged that accused persons had claimed the ownership of the two bags of contraband at the time of checking

Validity

If the accused persons had any nexus with the said bags containing huge quantity of contraband, they would never have claimed the ownership of the same or at the best, they could have kept mum

Said deposition of prosecution witness was neither believable nor appealed to the logic, hence the same was highly doubtful

Appeal was therefore allowed and conviction and sentences recorded by Trial Court against accused persons were set aside in circumstances.

Prosecution case was that 25-kilograms charas was recovered from secret cavities of the car of the accused-petitioner, 5-kilograms heroin was recovered from the cavities of car of other accused-petitioner, 5-kilograms 200 grams opium was recovered from the car of yet another accused-petitioner

Record showed that the accused-petitioner, in the case of recovery of 5-kilograms 200 grams opium, was arrested on 9.3.2015

Trial of the said accused-petitioner had not been concluded and delay in the conclusion of trial was not attributed to him

No evidence was forthcoming on record, which could show that case of said accused fell within the ambit of fourth proviso of S. 497, Cr.P.C.

Accused-petitioner was therefore, entitled to be released on bail on the ground of statutory delay

Accused was admitted to bail accordingly

Record transpired that none of the accused-petitioners of the other two cases had earned the ground of statutory delay of two years in the conclusion of their trial, thus, they were not entitled to be released on bail on the ground of statutory delay

Both the petitions for bail being premature were dismissed accordingly.

Prosecution in such circumstances, was duty bound to conduct diligent, honest and flawless investigation.

Prosecution produced photocopies of destruction certificates about disposal of case property which was inadmissible in evidence and could not be relied upon

Accused could not be convicted for an offence bearing capital punishment on the basis of mere photocopies of destruction certificates.

Prosecution had to produce original destruction certificates before the court and in case of absence of the same, the Magistrate concerned who had carried out the destruction proceedings could have been examined in support of the stance of the prosecution

By not examining the said witness, prosecution had withheld the best evidence

Presumption could be drawn that party had some motive behind it by not producing the said evidence and in case such evidence was produced, the same would not have supported the prosecution case

Such circumstances made the case of prosecution dubious

Appeal was allowed and conviction and sentence recorded against the accused were set-aside.

Defence had alleged that no private witness was associated at the time of recovery, which was violation of provision of S. 103, Cr.P.C.

Validity

Application of S. 103, Cr.P.C. had been excluded in such cases in view of S. 25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Excise officials were as good witnesses as other public witnesses

Evidence of such witnesses could not be discarded merely for the reason that they belong to Excise Department

Complainant and officials of Excise Department had no reason and enmity with accused to falsely implicate him in the present case

Appeal against conviction was dismissed.

Allegation against accused was that 80 packets of charas were found from the truck of accused, each packet contained 1-kg of charas

Complainant and recovery witnesses had proved that accused was driving the truck at the time of his arrest and 80-Kgs charas was recovered from the secret cavities of the truck

Knowledge of charas kept in the truck would be attributed to the accused as he was in-charge of the truck

No other person was sitting in the truck at the time of his arrest

Accused being driver could not be absolved from responsibility regarding the narcotic being carried in his vehicle

Circumstances established the guilt of accused

Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.

Person on driving seat of the vehicle would be held responsible for transportation of the narcotics.

Once the prosecution had established the case under S.29 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 burden would be shifted upon the accused to prove contrary to the plea of prosecution

In the present case, Chemical Examiner's report was in positive, which proved that substance recovered from the secret cavities of the truck of the accused was charas

Prosecution had established that the person who was found in possession of the narcotics had committed the offence while the defence had failed to discharge its burden in terms of S.29(d) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.

Defence had alleged that no private witness was associated at the time of alleged recovery of charas, which was violation of provision of S. 103 Cr.P.C.

Validity

Record showed that charas was recovered from the possession of accused at 0030 hours

Private person as witness at such odd hours of the night were not available, as such question of association of private persons did not arise

Police officials were as good witnesses as private persons of the society

Evidence of such witnesses could not be discarded merely for the reason that they were police officials

Appeal against conviction was dismissed in circumstances.

Complainant narrated the story of arrest of accused and recovery of charas, unlicensed weapon and hand grenade from his possession, which appeared to be confidence inspiring and trustworthy

Mashirnama of arrest and recovery was prepared by complainant/police official in presence of mashirs

Property was sealed at the spot

Complainant, thereafter, brought the accused to the police station and lodged FIR

Departure and arrival entries from police station were produced by the complainant, which showed that police party had actually left the police station for patrolling on the relevant date

Despite lengthy cross-examination, no inherent defect in the evidence of complainant had been brought on record

Sealed parcel of charas was sent to the Chemical Examiner

Evidence of mashir was also confidence inspiring and supported the complainant

Complainant had no reason to falsely challan the accused in the case

No material contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses were found

Circumstances established that prosecution proved its case beyond any shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.

Offence under S. 9(b), Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 did not fall within the ambit of restraining clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.

Peculiar circumstances of the case established that there was no probability of accused being convicted with maximum sentence provided in the Schedule

Challan had been submitted and accused was no more required for further investigation

Prosecution witnesses were officials, hence there was no apprehension of tampering with the prosecution evidence

Detention of accused would not serve any useful purpose

Accused was allowed bail in circumstances.

Mere presence of accused in driving seat did not prima facie, establish his involvement or his conscious knowledge regarding presence of narcotics

Case was one of further inquiry

Accused was released on bail in circumstances.