The division judge bench of Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice V. Ramasubramanian of the apex court in the case of Sanjeet Kumar Singh @ Munna Kumar Singh held that section 54 of the Act creates a presumption, and the accused is required to explain how he came into possession of the contraband. However, in order to invoke the assumption under Section 54 of the Act, it must first be proven that recovery was achieved from the accused.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that the SHO received secret information that the appellant and her friend are carrying ganja in the Dickey of their car after that the SHO recorded the information and served the notice under section 50 of the NDPS ACT. Further, the charge sheet was filed as an offense punishable under Section 20(b) of the Act.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that the informant and the investigating officer both were the same people and the principles laid down in a series of judgments of this Court have not been followed by the Special Court and the High Court. It was also contended that the owner of the car was not interrogated and they arrested both the accused even though the charge sheet was not filed. Even no notice under section 50 NDPS act was sent to Reena das and the time mentioned varies from document to document. The counsel relied upon the judgments titled Ajmer Singh vs. State of Haryana and Mohinder Singh vs. State of Punjab.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state contended that the NDPS act is in itself a complete code and once the procedure enumerated in Sections 42, 43,49 & 50 are scrupulously followed, it was for the accused, from whose possession the substance is recovered, to explain how he came into possession. Further, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state relied upon the judgments titled Mukesh Singh vs. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi), Dharampal Singh vs. State of Punjab, Rizwan Khan vs. the State of Chhattisgarh, State of Punjab vs. Baljinder Singh and Ors. Furthermore, it was contended that once possession is proved under Section 54, the accused is presumed to be guilty of the offense and the question of whether the informant can be I.O. is no longer res Integra in view of the decision of this Court in Mukesh Singh vs. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi).
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The hon'ble court stated that both the trial court and the high court went by the law in theory, without applying to the same to the facts of the case.
Further, the court held that it is true that Section 54 of the Act raises a presumption, and the burden shifts on the accused to explain how he came into possession of the contraband. But to raise the presumption under Section 54 of the Act, it must first be established that recovery was made from the accused. The moment doubt is cast upon the most fundamental aspect, namely the search and seizure, the appellant, in our considered opinion will also be entitled to the same benefit as given by the Special Court to the coaccused. At last, the appellant is entitled to get the benefit of the doubt. Therefore, the appeal is allowed and the judgments of the special court and the high court in so far as the same relates to the conviction of the appellant are set aside
CASE NAME- Sanjeet Kumar Singh @ Munna Kumar Singh
CITATION- CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 871 OF 2021
CORUM- Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice V. Ramasubramanian
DATE- 30.08.22
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
