Vimla Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6355 MP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR CRA No. 1021 of 2022 (VIMLA SINGH AND OTHERS Vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

Dated : 28-04-2022 Shri Sharad Verma, counsel for the appellants.

Shri Pramod Kumar Choubey, Public Prosecutor for the State. Heard on I.A No. 1616/2022 which is the first application under Section 389 (1) Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence on behalf of appellant No. 1-Vimla Singh.

It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that in this case only 2.5 k.g. cannabis has been recovered from possession of the applicant. The Seizing

Officer has admitted in his cross-examination that provisions of Sections 42 and 50 N.D.P.S Act have not been complied with in this case. The defence of the applicant was that several other family members also reside in the same house. Therefore, contraband cannot be considered in exclusive possession of the applicant. The Police raided the house and taken away Rs.8 lakhs kept therein to purchase a plot and when demanded back by applicant and her family members and for pressing their demand when they approached the higher authorities of the Police Department, the Station House Officer got annoyed and have falsely implicated the applicant and her sister in this case. Therefore, her sentence be

suspended.

Learned counsel for the applicant referred to paragraphs 14, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the statement of S.P. Shukla (PW-7) wherein the witness has admitted that provision of Sections 42 and 50 of N.D.P.S. Act have not been complied with in this case.

It is further submitted that all the Panchnamas are typed documents. The Investigating Officer has admitted that no typewriter was available on the spot. This shows that all the documents were got prepared at the Police Station itself. The applicant's counsel referred to the statement of D.W.-1 Aradhna Singh.

Learned counsel for the applicant further placed reliance in the case of Gorakh Nath Prasad v. State of Bihar [(2008) 2 SCC 305] and order dated Signature Not Verified SAN 25th January 2018 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Birbal Prasad v. State of Bihar [Criminal Appeal No. 175/2018 (arising out of SLP Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR TRIPATHI Date: 2022.04.30 10:38:50 IST

(Crl) No. 8464/2017)] Per contra learned Public Prosecutor referred to the document (Ex. P-28,P- 35 and P-36) to show that provisions of Section 42 NDPS Act have been complied with in the case. It is further argued that nothing has been recovered

from the person; therefore, compliance of Section 50 NDPS Act was not required. He further referred to the statement of Seizing Officer S.P. Shukla (PW-

7) who has categorically stated that after receiving information the house of the applicant was raided and illegal Ganja was recovered. Learned Public Prosecutor asserted that total 9.5 k.g and not 2.514 k.g cannabis was recovered from the possession of both sisters and the quantity recovered from the applicant cannot be segregated from the total quantity recovered from the house where both sisters were present. Relevant contents of all the Panchnamas were filled in on the spot; therefore, it does not make any difference if with the object of saving time and for the purposes of convenience proformas of those Panchnamas were typed at Police Station and now a days it is a common practice that the Seizing Officers who raid some place take with them either printed or typed proformas of necessary documents which have to be prepared on the spot and it saves time and is also convenient for the investigation of such an offence.

It is further argued by learned Public Prosecutor that no evidence has been produced on record to show that Rs.8,00,000/- were kept in the house of the complainant, no complaint was made by the appellants or their sister Aradhana Singh, who appeared as a witness of defence before the Court or by any other family member as claimed by them. Therefore, such a vague defence cannot be relied upon at this stage. The prosecution has proved its case by producing cogent evidence. No source of income has been shown by the applicant or her sister which substantiates the allegation of the prosecution that both the sisters were indulged in the illegal trade of contraband, therefore, their sentence may not be suspended.

I have considered the rival contentions and have gone through the record.

Signature Not Verified The facts of the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the applicant in SAN

Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR Gorakh Nath Prasad (supra) are not before this Court and the judgment passed TRIPATHI Date: 2022.04.30 10:38:50 IST

in Birbal Prasad (supra) is distinguishable on facts.

On perusal of statement of S.P. Shukla (PW-7), the documents prepared on and off the spot at pre and post recovery stage, the statement of defence witness Aradhna Singh, absence of any document to substantiate the defence, recovery of huge amount of Rs.2,20,245/- along with contraband, I do not deem it appropriate to suspend the sentence awarded to the appellant.

Therefore, I.A No. 1616/2022 is dismissed.

(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE

vivek

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR TRIPATHI Date: 2022.04.30 10:38:50 IST