Karnataka High Court
Sanju S/O. Goutam Tikota vs The State Of Karnataka By on 8 January, 2024
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:428
CRL.A No. 2796 of 2013
C/W. CRL.A Nos. 2785 AND 2818 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2796 OF 2013
CLUBBED WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2785 OF 2013
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2818 OF 2013
IN CRL.A. NO.2796/2013:
BETWEEN:
BASAYYA SHANKARAYYA ARAGUNDI
@ AALAGUNDI, AGE: 22 YEARS,
R/O. AGASIMUNDE KADAPATTI CHAL,
TQ: JAMAKANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI VIJAY M. MALALI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
VIJAYALAXMI signed by
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
M BHAT VIJAYALAXMI
M BHAT BY MALMARUTI POLICE STATION,
R/BY S.P.P KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BENCH,
DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI M. B. GUNDWADE, ADDITIONAL SPP)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 374(2) OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 16.09.2013 PASSED BY
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:428
CRL.A No. 2796 of 2013
C/W. CRL.A Nos. 2785 AND 2818 of 2013
THE SPECIAL (PRL. SESSIONS) JUDGE, BELGAUM, IN SPL.
CASE NO.59/2012 AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANT.
IN CRL.A.NO.2785/2013:
BETWEEN:
UDAYKUMAR @ UDAY SHIVYOGI DANANNAVAR,
AGE: 22 YEARS,
R/O. GUDAGERI ROAD, SAMSI,
TQ: KUNDAGOL, DIST: DHARWAD.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SHANKAR HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MALMARUTI POLICE STATION,
R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD BENCH.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI M. B. GUNDWADE, ADDITIONAL S.P.P.)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC. 374(2) OF
CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 17.09.2013 PASSED
BY SPL. PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE, BELGAUM, IN SPECIAL CASE
NO. 59/2012 AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANT.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:428
CRL.A No. 2796 of 2013
C/W. CRL.A Nos. 2785 AND 2818 of 2013
IN CRL.A.NO.2818/2013:
BETWEEN:
SANJU S/O. GOUTAM TIKOTA,
AGE: 22 YEARS,
R/O. SAVALAGI, HARIJANKERI,
TQ: JAMKHANDIR, DIST: BAGALKOT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI GANAPATI M. BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
ITS MAL MARUTI POLICE STATION,
BELGAUM.
R/BY S.P.P, HIGH COURT,
DHARWAD BENCH BUILDING,
DHARWAD-580011.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI M. B. GUNDWADE, ADDITIONAL SPP)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S. 374(2) OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
CONVICTION DATED 16.09.2013 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL
(PRL. SESSIONS) JUDGE, BELGAUM, IN S.C.NO.59/2012, FOR
THE OFFENCES P/U/S 20(B)(II)(C) OF NARCOTIC DRUGS AND
PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCE ACT,1985 AND ACQUIT THE
APPELLANT FOR CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST HIM.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:428
CRL.A No. 2796 of 2013
C/W. CRL.A Nos. 2785 AND 2818 of 2013
JUDGMENT
These three criminal appeals under Section 374(2) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 arise out of the Judgment
and order of conviction dated 16.09.2013 and order on
sentence dated 17.09.2013 passed by the Court of Special
(Principal Sessions) Judge, Belagavi (for short, 'the Trial Court')
in Special Case No.59/2012.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. Facts leading to filing of above captioned three appeals
as revealed from the records narrated briefly are, on
31.12.2011, the appellants herein who are arrayed as accused
Nos.1 to 3 before the Trial Court were found transporting four
plastic bags containing contraband article ganja totally
weighing 103 kgs in a Cruiser vehicle bearing registration
No.KA-48/M-153. The said vehicle was intercepted by the Police
Officers attached to the Malmaruti Police Station, Belagavi and
after the contraband article allegedly ganja was seized and
subjected to panchanama, accused persons who were found
transporting the same in their vehicle were arrested and
remanded to judicial custody. Investigation in the case was
completed and charge sheet was filed for the offence
NC: 2024:KHC-D:428
C/W. CRL.A Nos. 2785 AND 2818 of 2013
punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (for short, 'the NDPS Act,
1985') and Section 34 of the IPC.
4. Before the Trial Court, the prosecution to prove its case
had examined 09 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.9 and had got
marked 22 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.22. The prosecution
also had got marked 09 material objects as M.O-1 to M.O-9.
After completion of recording of prosecution evidence, the
statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was
recorded. However, the accused did not choose to lead any
defence evidence. The Trial Court after hearing the arguments
addressed by both sides, vide the impugned Judgment and
order, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under
Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, 1985 and sentenced them
to undergo imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay
fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each and in default to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of 01 year.
5. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and order passed
by the Trial Court, accused Nos.1 to 3 have preferred these
three appeals before this Court.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:428
C/W. CRL.A Nos. 2785 AND 2818 of 2013
6. Learned counsel for the appellants having reiterated the
grounds urged in the memorandum of appeals, submits that
the requirement of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act, 1985,
which are mandatory in nature has not been complied in the
present case. P.W.2 and 3 who were independent pancha
witnesses to the seizure mahazar have not supported the case
of prosecution. The other witnesses are all official witnesses.
The Investigating Officer has not prepared an inventory of the
seized contraband article and has not got the said inventory
certified by the jurisdictional Magistrate as required under
section 52A of the NDPS Act, 1985. Therefore, the impugned
Judgment and order passed by the Trial Court is bad in law.
Accordingly, they prayed to allow the appeals.
7. Per Contra, the learned Additional State Public
Prosecutor has argued in support of the impugned Judgment
and order. He submits that non-compliance of Sections 42 and
50 and 52A of the NDPS Act, 1985 has not caused any
prejudice to the case of appellants. Even though, P.W.2 and 3
have turned hostile the seizure of the contraband article has
been proved by the prosecution by producing Ex.P.6
photographs of seizure. The quantity of contraband article
NC: 2024:KHC-D:428
C/W. CRL.A Nos. 2785 AND 2818 of 2013
seized is huge and the appellants were found in possession of
the same. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeals.
8. P.W.1 is the informant in the present case. Ex.P.1 is
the intimation forwarded by P.W.1 to his higher Officer prior to
conducting the raid. For a perusal of the same, prima-facie it is
seen that requirement of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, 1985 has
not been complied. The material on record would go to show
that P.W.1 was in the Police Station when he received the
credible information regarding transportation of contraband
article in a vehicle. A reading of Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act,
1985 would go to show that on receipt of credible information
the Officer is required to reduce the information in writing and
enter the same in the prescribed register and Section 42(2) of
the NDPS Act, 1985 provides that the said information
recorded, shall be communicated to the higher officer. In the
present case, the said mandatory requirement of law appears
to be prima-facie not complied with.
9. The Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Karnail Singh vs. State of Haryana, reported in
(2008) 8 SCC 539 has held that compliance of requirement
under Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act, 1985 are
NC: 2024:KHC-D:428
C/W. CRL.A Nos. 2785 AND 2818 of 2013
mandatory in nature. In the case of State of Rajasthan vs.
Jagraj Singh Alias Hansa, reported in (2016) 11 SCC 687,
where the recovery of contraband article was made from a
private vehicle, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that
Section 43 of the NDPS Act, 1983 does not get attracted and
only Section 42 of the NDPS Act, 1983 would be applicable. In
paragraph no.29 of the said Judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has observed as follows :
29. After referring to the earlier judgments, the
Constitution Bench came to the conclusion that non-
compliance with requirement of Sections 42 and 50 is
impermissible whereas delayed compliance with
satisfactory explanation will be acceptable compliance
with Section 42. The Constitution Bench noted the effect
of the aforesaid two decisions in para 5. The present is
not a case where insofar as compliance with Section
42(1) proviso even an argument based on substantial
compliance is raised there is total non-compliance with
Section 42(1) proviso. As observed above, Section 43
being not attracted, search was to be conducted after
complying with the provisions of Section 42. We thus,
conclude that the High Court has rightly held that non-
compliance with Section 42(1) and Section 42(2) were
proved on the record and the High Court has not
committed any error in setting aside the conviction
order."
NC: 2024:KHC-D:428
C/W. CRL.A Nos. 2785 AND 2818 of 2013
10. In the case of Boota Singh and Others vs. State of
Haryana, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 324, wherein
contraband article was seized from a private vehicle, in
paragraph Nos.15 to 17, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
observed as follows :
"15. The evidence in the present case clearly shows
that the vehicle was not a public conveyance but was a
vehicle belonging to accused Gurdeep Singh. The
Registration Certificate of the vehicle, which has been
placed on record also does not indicate it to be a Public
Transport Vehicle. The explanation to Section 43 shows
that a private vehicle would not come within the
expression "public place" as explained in Section 43 of the
NDPS Act. On the strength of the decision of this Court
in Jagraj Singh alias Hansa3, the relevant provision would
not be Section 43 of the NDPS Act but the case would
come under Section 42 of the NDPS Act.
16. It is an admitted position that there was total non-
compliance of the requirements of Section 42 of the NDPS
Act.
17. The decision of this Court in Karnail Singh as
followed in Jagraj, is absolutely clear. Total non-
compliance of Section 42 is impermissible. The rigor of
Section 42 may get lessened in situations dealt with in the
conclusion drawn by this Court in Karnail Singh Singh
alias Hansa, (2009) 8 SCC 539 but in no case, total non-
compliance of Section 42 can be accepted."
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:428
C/W. CRL.A Nos. 2785 AND 2818 of 2013
11. In the present case, the informant was in the Police
Station as could be seen from the Ex.P.1, when he received the
credible information and therefore, he was required to reduce
the credible information into writing and enter the same in the
prescribed register and thereafter forward the said information
to his higher officers. The said mandatory requirement of
Section 42 of the NDPS Act, 1985 has not at all been complied
in the present case. In addition to the same, even in the
present case, the seizure is from a private vehicle and therefore
the Judgments referred to hereinabove would be squarely
applicable to the facts of the present case.
12. The seizure mahazar at Ex.P.5 would go to show that
in addition to the contraband article, cash of Rs.20,000/- was
recovered from the possession of accused No.1. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of SK. Raju Alias Abdul Haque Alias
Jagga vs. State of West Bengal, reported in (2018) 9 SCC 708,
in a case, where cash recovered from the person of accused in
addition to recovery of contraband article from the bag carried
by the accused has held that compliance of Section 50 of the
NDPS Act, 1985 which is mandatory in nature become
necessary. In the said case, the Investigating Officer had
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:428
C/W. CRL.A Nos. 2785 AND 2818 of 2013
searched the bag of accused and recovered the contraband
article from the bag of accused and on the personal search of
the accused from his trouser pocket cash was recovered. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the said case as soon as
search of person takes place, requirement of compliance of
Section 50 of the NDPS Act, 1985 is attracted, irrespective of
whether contraband article is recovered from the person of the
accused or not. In the present case, the material would go to
show that there is a total non compliance of mandatory
requirement of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, 1985.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Delhi vs. Ram Avtar Alias Rama, reported in (2011) 12 SCC
207 has held that merely asking the accused whether he
wished to be searched before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate
without informing him that he enjoyed a right in that behalf,
amounts to not compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act,
1985. In paragraph nos.28, 29 and 33 of the said Judgment,
the Hon'ble Court has observed as follows :
28. To secure a conviction under Section 21 of the
Act, the possession of the illicit article is a sine qua non.
Such contraband article should be recovered in accordance
with the provisions of Section 50 of the Act, otherwise, the
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:428
C/W. CRL.A Nos. 2785 AND 2818 of 2013
recovery itself shall stand vitiated in law. Whether the
provisions of Section 50 of the Act were complied with or
not, would normally be a matter to be determined on the
basis of the evidence produced by the prosecution. An
illegal search cannot entitle the prosecution to raise a
presumption of validity of evidence under Section 50 of the
Act. As is obvious from the bare language of Ext. PW 6/A,
the accused was not made aware of his right, that he could
be searched in the presence of a gazetted officer or a
Magistrate, and that he could exercise such choice. The
writing does not reflect this most essential requirement of
Section 50 of the Act. Thus, we have no hesitation in
holding that the judgment of the High Court does not
suffer from any infirmity.
29. Now, we come to discuss the argument raised on
behalf of the State, that in the present case, generally and
as a proposition of law, even if there is an apparent default
in compliance with the provisions of Section 50 of the Act,
a person may still be convicted if the recovery of the
contraband can be proved by the statements of
independent witnesses or other responsible officers, in
whose presence the recovery is effected. To us, this
argument appears to be based upon not only a
misconstruction of the provisions of Section 50 of the Act
but also on the misconception of the principles applicable
to criminal jurisprudence. Once the recovery itself is found
to be illegal, being in violation of the provisions of Section
50 of the Act, it cannot, on the basis of the statements of
the police officers, or even independent witnesses, form
the foundation for conviction of the accused under Section
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:428
C/W. CRL.A Nos. 2785 AND 2818 of 2013
21 of the Act. Once the recovery is held to be illegal, that
means the accused did not actually possess the illicit
article or contraband and that no such illicit article was
recovered from the possession of the accused such as to
enable such conviction of a contraband article.
33. The Constitution Bench, in Vijaysinh Chandubha
Jadeja [(2011) 1 SCC 609 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 497] had
spelt out the effects of failure to comply with the
mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the Act, being (A)
cause of prejudice to the suspect accused; (B) rendering
recovery of illicit article suspect and thereby, vitiating the
conviction, if the same is recorded only on the basis of
recovery of illicit article from the person of the accused
during such search. The learned counsel for the appellant
relied on the use of the words "only on the basis of the
recovery" used in para 29 of that judgment, to contend
that if there is other supporting evidence of recovery, the
conviction cannot be set aside. This submission is nothing
but based upon a misreading of the judgment; not only of
para 29 but the judgment in its entirety."
14. In the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma vs. State of
Rajasthan, reported in (2013) 2 SCC 67, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in paragraph Nos.8 and 9 of its Judgment has observed
as follows :
"8. We may, in this connection, also examine the
general maxim ignorantia juris non excusat and whether in
such a situation the accused could take a defence that he
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:428
C/W. CRL.A Nos. 2785 AND 2818 of 2013
was unaware of the procedure laid down in Section 50 of
the NDPS Act. Ignorance does not normally afford any
defence under the criminal law, since a person is presumed
to know the law. Undisputedly ignorance of law often in
reality exists, though as a general proposition, it is true,
that knowledge of law must be imputed to every person.
But it must be too much to impute knowledge in certain
situations, for example, we cannot expect a rustic villager,
totally illiterate, a poor man on the street, to be aware of
the various laws laid down in this country, leave aside the
NDPS Act. We notice that this fact is also within the
knowledge of the legislature, possibly for that reason the
legislature in its wisdom imposed an obligation on the
authorised officer acting under Section 50 of the NDPS Act
to inform the suspect of his right under Section 50 to be
searched in the presence of a gazetted officer or a
Magistrate warranting strict compliance with that
procedure.
9. We are of the view that non-compliance with this
mandatory procedure has vitiated the entire proceedings
initiated against the appellant-accused. We are of the view
that the Special Court as well as the High Court has
committed an error in not properly appreciating the scope
of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The appeal is, therefore,
allowed. Consequently, the conviction and sentence
imposed by the Sessions Court and affirmed by the High
Court are set aside. The appellant-accused, who is in jail,
to be released forthwith, if not required in connection with
any other case."
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:428
C/W. CRL.A Nos. 2785 AND 2818 of 2013
15. In the case of Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja vs. State
of Gujarat, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 609, in paragraph No.29
of the judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as
follows :
"29. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of
the firm opinion that the object with which the right under
Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act, by way of a safeguard, has
been conferred on the suspect viz. to check the misuse of
power, to avoid harm to innocent persons and to minimise
the allegations of planting or foisting of false cases by the
law enforcement agencies, it would be imperative on the
part of the empowered officer to apprise the person
intended to be searched of his right to be searched before
a gazetted officer or a Magistrate. We have no hesitation in
holding that insofar as the obligation of the authorised
officer under sub-section (1) of Section 50 of the NDPS Act
is concerned, it is mandatory and requires strict
compliance. Failure to comply with the provision would
render the recovery of the illicit article suspect and vitiate
the conviction if the same is recorded only on the basis of
the recovery of the illicit article from the person of the
accused during such search. Thereafter, the suspect may
or may not choose to exercise the right provided to him
under the said provision."
16. In the present case, P.W.2 and 3 who are the
independent pancha witnesses have not supported the case of
prosecution. In addition to the same, there is no compliance
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:428
C/W. CRL.A Nos. 2785 AND 2818 of 2013
with the mandatory requirement of Section 50 of the NDPS Act,
1985. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred
Judgments has not only held that non compliance of Section 50
of the NDPS Act, 1985 would vitiate the trial, but also has held
that the same would render the recovery suspicious.
17. In the present case, in addition to non compliance of
mandatory requirements as provided under Sections 42 and 50
of the NDPS Act, 1985, the prosecution has also not complied
with Section 52A(2) of the NDPS Act, 1985. The material on
record would go to show that the Investigating Officer has not
prepared an inventory of the contraband article seized and has
not produced the contraband article before the jurisdictional
Magistrate and the requirement of getting the inventory
certified by the jurisdictional Magistrate is also not complied.
18. Section 52A of the NDPS Act, 1985 reads as follows :
"52A. Disposal of seized narcotic drugs and
psychotropic substances.--
(1) The Central Government may, having regard to
the hazardous nature, vulnerability to theft, substitution,
constraint of proper storage space or any other relevant
consideration, in respect of any narcotic drugs, psychotropic
substances, controlled substances or conveyances, by
notification in the Official Gazette, specify such narcotic
drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or
conveyance or class of narcotic drugs, class of psychotropic
substances, class of controlled substances or conveyances,
which shall, as soon as may be after their seizure, be
disposed of by such officer and in such manner as that
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:428
C/W. CRL.A Nos. 2785 AND 2818 of 2013
Government may, from time to time, determine after
following the procedure hereinafter specified.
(2) Where any narcotic drugs, psychotropic
substances, controlled substances or conveyances has been
seized and forwarded to the officer-in-charge of the nearest
police station or to the officer empowered under section 53,
the officer referred to in sub-section (1) shall prepare an
inventory of such narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances,
controlled substances or conveyances containing such
details relating to their description, quality, quantity, mode
of packing, marks, numbers or such other identifying
particulars of the narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances,
controlled substances or conveyances or the packing in
which they are packed, country of origin and other
particulars as the officer referred to in sub-section (1) may
consider relevant to the identity of the narcotic drugs,
psychotropic substances, controlled substances or
conveyances in any proceedings under this Act and make
an application, to any Magistrate for the purpose of--
(a) certifying the correctness of the inventory so
prepared; or
(b) taking, in the presence of such magistrate,
photographs of such drugs, substances or conveyances
and certifying such photographs as true; or
(c) allowing to draw representative samples of
such drugs or substances, in the presence of such
magistrate and certifying the correctness of any list of
samples so drawn.
(3) Where an application is made under sub-section
(2), the Magistrate shall, as soon as may be, allow the
application.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1972) or the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every court trying an offence
under this Act, shall treat the inventory, the photographs
of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled
substances or conveyances and any list of samples drawn
under sub-section (2) and certified by the Magistrate, as
primary evidence in respect of such offence."
19. Sub-section 1 of Section 52A of the NDPS Act, 1985
provides for the manner in which the Central Government is
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:428
C/W. CRL.A Nos. 2785 AND 2818 of 2013
required to dispose of the seized narcotic substance. The object
behind disposing of the seized contraband article is to prevent
any illegal use of the said contraband article. Sub-section (2) of
Section 52A of the NDPS Act, 1985 provides that the authorised
Officer shall prepare an inventory of the seized contraband
article after producing the seized contraband article before the
jurisdictional Magistrate by making necessary application and
the sample of the seized contraband article shall also be drawn
in the specified manner before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The
inventory prepared by the authorized officer is required to be
certified by the jurisdictional Magistrate and the entire process
of certifying the inventory is required to be done within a
reasonable time. This provision gives a supervisory power to
the jurisdictional Magistrate which is provided with an object to
the find out the correctness and genuineness of the seizure
made by the authorized Officers. The object behind this
provision is to prevent foul play in the process of investigation.
20. Section 52A(3) of the NDPS Act, 1985 provides that
when an application is made under Section (2), the Magistrate
shall, as soon as may be, allow the application. Section 52A(4)
of the NDPS Act, 1985 reads as follows ;
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:428
C/W. CRL.A Nos. 2785 AND 2818 of 2013
52A(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1972) or the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every
court trying an offence under this Act, shall treat the
inventory, the photographs of 5[narcotic drugs,
psychotropic substances, controlled substances or
conveyances] and any list of samples drawn under
sub-section (2) and certified by the Magistrate, as
primary evidence in respect of such offence.]
21. In the present case, the Investigating Officer has not
prepared any inventory and has not got the same certified by
the jurisdictional Magistrate. The sample of the contraband
article drawn as provided under sub-section (2) of Section
52(A) is also not certified by the Magistrate. P.W.9 in his
evidence has admitted this aspect of the matter. In the absence
of certification by jurisdictional Magistrate the inventory
photographs and list of samples drawn under Section 52(A)(2)
cannot be considered as primary evidence. The Trial Court was
therefore not justified in placing reliance on the photographs to
prove the recovery.
22. From the aforesaid analysis of the matter, it is seen
that the prosecution has failed to comply the mandatory
requirements of Sections 42, 50 and 52A of the NDPS Act,
1985. The same is fatal to the case of prosecution. A serious
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:428
C/W. CRL.A Nos. 2785 AND 2818 of 2013
doubt arises with regard to the correctness and genuineness of
the seizure made by the prosecution having regard to the total
non compliance of Sections 42, 50 and 52A of the NDPS Act,
1985. It is trite that non-compliance of aforesaid provisions of
law vitiates the investigation as well as the trial and therefore
the Trial Court was not justified in convicting the appellants for
the alleged charge sheet offences. Under the circumstances, I
am of the view that the impugned Judgment and order of
conviction and sentence is required to be set aside.
Accordingly, the following :
ORDER
Appeals are allowed.
The Judgment and order of conviction dated 16.09.2013
and order on sentence dated 17.09.2013 passed in Special
Case No.59/2012 by the Court of Special (Principal Sessions)
Judge, Belagavi are set aside.
Accused are acquitted for the offence punishable under
section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, 1985 for which they were
convicted by the Trial Court.
The bail bonds, if any of the accused persons stand
cancelled.
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:428
C/W. CRL.A Nos. 2785 AND 2818 of 2013
Registry to return the trial Court records along with copy
of this Judgment forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
CKK
