Munna Lal Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 5455 MP

                                1
                                                  WP. No.21302/2013




HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT
                AT JABALPUR


Case Number and                  WP No.21302/2013
Parties Name
                                     Munna Lal Patel
                                            Vs.
                                State of M.P. and others

Date of Order              15/09/2021
Bench Constituted          Single Bench:
                           Justice Prakash Shrivastava

Whether approved for       No
reporting
Name of counsels for       Shri Vidya Prassad Kushwaha,
parties                    Advocate for the petitioner.

                           Shri Pradeep Singh, Government
                           Advocate for the respondents.
Law laid down                                -
Significant paragraph                        -
numbers

                            ORDER

15 .09.2021

Per: Prakash Shrivastava, J.

By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.09.2013 whereby the petitioner has been found unfit for uniformed service. The petitioner has further challenged the communication dated 10th of November, 2013 whereby he has been conveyed the refusal to take back in duty.

2. The petitioner was prosecuted for offence under Section 8(A) read with Section 20(A)(1) of the NDPS Act on the charge that the petitioner alongwith other co-accused persons was cultivating the cannabis in their agricultural field. After the trial, the petitioner was acquitted by the judgment dated 19 th of October, 2012 in NDPS Case No.3/2009 by the Special Judge(NDPS Act) and III Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh.

WP. No.21302/2013

Thereafter, the petitioner had approached the respondents for reinstatement in service and by the impugned order the petitioner's prayer was rejected.

3. Submission of counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has already been acquitted in the criminal case, therefore there was no justification to deny reinstatement in service. Further submission is that the acquittal of the petitioner is a clean acquittal as nothing has been paid.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the writ petition and has supported the impugned order.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that by the impugned order dated 13.09.2013, the petitioner has been refused reinstatement in service on the ground that the offence under Section 8(A) read with Section 20(A)(1) of the NDPS Act is a serious offence and the petitioner has been given benefit of doubt while granting acquittal which cannot be treated to be an honourable acquittal. Hence, the petitioner has been found to be unfit for uniformed service. In the reply to the writ petition, the respondents have also taken the stand that the contraband item was found in the field of the petitioner but he has been acquitted because he was not present on the spot, hence, he has been given the benefit of doubt and further stand is that undisputedly land belongs to the petitioner from where the Ganja was seized. The stand of the respondent in paragraph 4 of the reply is as under:

"4. Answering respondents respectfully submit that admittedly the petitioner was involved in the case U/s 8A read with Section 20A(1) of the N.D.P.S. Act. According to the prosecution case 3 kg and 700 grams of Ganja has been found in the field of the petitioner. Total 15.48 Quintal of weight of green tea has also been found because the petitioner has not found where the ganja has been seized, therefore, the learned Special Judge had given

WP. No.21302/2013

benefit of doubt and acquitted from the aforesaid charges but it is not disputed that said land was belonging to the petitioner where the Ganja has been seized."

6. Learned Additional Sessions Judge in the judgment dated 19th of October, 2012 has found that there was no immovable property in the name of the petitioner. It has also not been proved that the land from where the contraband item was seized belonged to the petitioner. The prosecution also could not establish that the petitioner was present on the spot. On the basis of these findings, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has reached to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to establish the charge against the petitioner and accordingly acquitted the petitioner.

7. The reason which is assigned in the impugned order as also the stand taken by the respondents in the reply before this Court reveal that the respondents have not properly considered the judgment of acquittal of the trial court. The impugned order suffers from the defect of non-application of mind.

8. In view of the aforesaid, this petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 13.09.2013 and the communication dated 10.11.2013 are set aside by directing the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's case in accordance with law after taking into account the reasoning, findings and conclusion of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the criminal case. Let this exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

(Prakash Shrivastava) Judge YS

Digitally signed by YOGESH KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA Date: 2021.09.17 12:58:48 +05'30'