Jharkhand High Court
Dhirendra Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 25 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 3377 of 2021
Dhirendra Mahto ..... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... ... Opposite Party
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
: Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Binit Chandra, A.C. to A.A.G.-III.
------
05/ 25.08.2022 Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr. Binit Chandra, learned A.C. to A.A.G.-III for the State.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated
26.11.2021, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Latehar, in
Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 705 of 2021, in connection with
N.D.P.S. Case No. 03 of 2021, arising out of Balumath P.S. Case No. 239
of 2020, whereby petition filed by the petitioner under Section 451 Cr.P.C.
for release of seized cash of Rs. 5,50,000/- has been rejected, pending in
that court itself.
3. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that no material has been recovered from the possession of the
petitioner and also the contraband materials have also not been recovered
from the house of the petitioner. He submits that the amount in question
was obtained by the petitioner by way of taking loan and that's why the
same is not the proceeds of crime. He submits that the learned court
without appreciating the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Versus State of Gujarat, reported in (2002) 10
SCC 283, the prayer of the petitioner has been rejected. He also submits
that even assuming that the petitioner has confessed before the police, this
is not admissible and on this ground, he submits that the cash amount may
kindly be released in favour of the petitioner.
4. Per contra, Mr. Binit Chandra, learned A.C. to A.A.G.-III,
submits that the petitioner is habitual offender in NDPS cases and the
amount, seized has been kept in the bucket under the bed is the proceeds
of crime. He submits that the petitioner has confessed his guilt before the
police in para-1 of the case diary, leading to recovery of 820 gms. Opium
from the house of Dilip Prasad Sao. He further submits that the seizure list
witnesses have also supported the seizure in paras-1, 2 and 4 of the case
diary. He further submits that in para-13 of the case diary, the petitioner
has stated that he has taken Rs. 5,50,000/- from Dilip and Ravindra for
supplying them opium. He submits that there is no illegality in the
impugned order.
5. In view of such submission, the court has perused the
impugned order dated 26.11.2021, by which, the prayer of the petitioner
has been rejected. In the impugned order, learned court has considered
para-2 of the case diary, which shows the seizure list No. 1 and according
to that on 24.12.2020 at 13.20 O'clock at Ganeshpur, P.S.-Balumath,
District-Latehar in presence of the witnesses, from the pocket of the pant
of the petitioner, one mobile of Samsung company and one screen touch
mobile of MI company and from the house of the petitioner Rs. 5,50,000/-
kept in a bucket under the bed were recovered and seizure list was
prepared. The learned court has rightly interpreted Sections 60, 61, 62 and
63 of the NDPS Act and considering all these Sections, not allowed the
prayer of the petitioner. The learned court has also ordered that the money,
recovered from the petitioner has already been deposited in the Treasury
and after conclusion of the trial that can be disbursed, if it is proved that
the amount was not the proceeds of crime. The court while deciding the
petition under Section 451 Cr.P.C. has also taken care of the guidelines of
the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal
Desai (Supra).
6. In the case in hand, the petitioner has confessed before the
police that the amount was received for supply of the opium. There is
procedure prescribed in the NDPS Act, while it is true that a confession
made before an officer of the Department of Revenue Intelligence under
the NDPS Act may not be hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act, yet such
confession must be subject to closer scrutiny than a confession made to
private citizens or officials, who do not have investigating powers under
Act. Reference may be made to the case of Francis Stanly @ Stalin
Versus Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, reported in 2007
Cr.L.J. 1157 (SC).
7. There is no illegality in the impugned order, as such, this
petition is dismissed.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Amitesh/-
