R/SCR.A/1100/2023 ORDER DATED: 25/01/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1100 of 2023
==========================================================
SUKHPRITSINGH @ SUKHI S/O SIKANDERSINGH
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MB RANA(2760) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS DIVYAGNA JHALA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
Date : 25/01/2023
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr. M.B.Rana, learned counsel for the Petitioner.
2. This petition is directed against the order dated 02.09.2022 passed in Special (NDPS) Case No.3/2021, by which learned 4 th Additional Sessions Judge, Palanpur by overwhelming the objections raised by the defense counsel, permitted the prosecution to ask certain questions as mentioned in para 7 of the deposition.
3. Mr. Rana submits that, the Petitioner has been charged for the offence under Sections 8(C) and 20(B)(iii)C of NDPS Act. It is the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner that at the relevant point of time, in presence of investigating agency, the accused have disclosed the source of narcotic contraband. It is in this context, relying upon the judgment of Anil Surendrasingh Yadav Vs. State of Gujarat [(2020) 3 GLR 1983], Mr. Rana submits that, the statement in form of confession made by the accused before panchas while he was in police custody, would be hit by Section 26 of the Evidence Act. He also submits that, while Page 1 of 2 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 25 20:58:35 IST 2023 R/SCR.A/1100/2023 ORDER DATED: 25/01/2023 allowing prosecution to ask certain questions as referred to above, trial Court has failed to appreciate the settled proposition of law and therefore, the order in question is perverse and requires to be quashed and set aside.
4. Having regard to the facts and circumstance of the case, it appears that during the course of investigation, accused made confession with regard to source of contraband narcotics and the same has been mentioned in seizure panchnama. In this circumstances, during chief-examination of panchwitness, it has been asked to the witness about confession made by the accused at the time of drawing panchnama. In such circumstance, considering Section 26 of the Evidence Act as well as the ratio laid down in the case of Anil Surendrasinh Yadav (supra), this Court is of view that present case is squarely covered by the observations made therein.
5. Thus, the impugned order dated 02.09.2022 passed by learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Palanpur, in Special (NDPS) Case No.3/2021, allowing prosecution to ask certain questions with regard to admission of confession of the accused is hereby quashed and set aside. It is made clear that as and when raiding officer entered into witness-box, prosecution is at liberty to prove the factum of seizure panchnama and source of contraband narcotics in accordance with law.
6. In view of the above, present petition is disposed of.
(ILESH J. VORA,J) SUCHIT Page 2 of 2 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 25 20:58:35 IST 2023