Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajendra @ Manja Jaiswal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 June, 2022
Author: Sujoy Paul
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 3578 of 2022
(RAJENDRA @ MANJA JAISWAL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 28-06-2022
Shri Aman Dawra, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Yogesh Dhande, G.A. for the respondent-State.
Record of the trial Court has been received.
Heard on I.A.No. 6611/2022, first application filed under Section
389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence of the appellant.
Appellant stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section
20([k)(ii)(x) of NDPS Act,1985 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 12 years
with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- also with default stipulation.
The prosecution story in short is that, on 28.08.2018 at 11:15 hrs, in-
charge Shahpur Chowki Assistant Sub-Inspector Brijraj Singh Baghel
received an information that Rajendra Jaiswal alias Manja father Budhsen
Jaiswal of village Mau was illegally selling narcotic ganja in a kachha
house behind his house. The information was conveyed to the senior
officers over phone, who instructed to take legal action on which the police
force came from the station Semaria and seized 52 Kg. contraband Ganja
from the hosue of the appellant. The Panchnama was prepared and offence
has been registered against the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has
wrongly been convicted by the trial Court. Learned counsel for the
appellant submits that ganja has not been seized from exclusive possession
Signature Not Verified
SAN
of the appellant, there is no independent witness of the incident. The
Digitally signed by ARVIND KUMAR
MISHRA
Date: 2022.06.30 17:04:43 IST
appellant is innocent person and was not involved in the alleged offence.
There are so many material contradictions and omissions in the statement
of prosecution witnesses. The prosecution has not complied with the
mandatory provision of NDPS Act. There is no criminal antecedent against
the present appellant. Final hearing of this appeal is not possible in near
future. With the aforesaid, he prays for allowing the said application. In
support of his contention he has relied upon the judgment delivered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hanif Khan Alias Annu Khan Vs.
Central Bureau of Narcotics reported in (2020) 16 SCC 709 in which
Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that because there is a reverse burden of
proof, the prosecution shall be put to a stricter test for compliance with
statutory provisions. If at any stage, the accused is able to create a
reasonable doubt, as a part of his defence, to rebut the presumption of his
guilt, the benefit will naturally have to go to him. Learned counsel for
appellant further relied upon the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Gangadhar Alias Gangaram Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh reported in (2020) 9 SCC 202 in which Hon'ble Apex
Court has observed that conviction of accused under Sections 8C read with
Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985 based on mere presumption of ownership of aforesaid house,
without any finding of conscious possession of house with accused, so as to
attribute presumption under NDPS Act against him with regard to recovery
Signature Not Verified
of contraband- Guilt of accused not established beyond reasonable doubt-
SAN
Digitally signed by ARVIND KUMAR
conviction reversed.
MISHRA
Date: 2022.06.30 17:04:43 IST
On the other hand, learned G.A. opposes the prayer of the counsel
for the appellant submitting that the contraband substance was seized from
the house/ possession of present appellant.
Heard and perused the record.
On perusal of evidence available on record, it is found that 52 kg.
of contraband substance (ganja) was seized from the house of the appellant
which comes under commercial quantity. Learned counsel for the appellant
seeks bail to the appellant mainly on the grounds of false implication of the
appellant and the mandatory provisions of NDPS Act has not been
complied with. Prima facie, it appears that the appellant was well aware
w ith the fact that the contraband substance was kept in his house. The
ground of falsely implication of the appellant and non-compliance of
mandatory provisions of NDPS Act, prima facie, having no force as it
appears from the learned trial Court discussed about the compliance of
mandatory provisions of NDPS Act and prima facie, the case does not
seem of falsely implication. Therefore, the involvement of accused is
found in the case and there is no sufficient reasonable ground for believing
that the appellant is not guilty of such offence. Therefore, the judgments
relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant have no relevance in
the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Accordingly, the I.A.No. 6611/2022, is hereby rejected.
List the appeal for final hearing in due course.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by ARVIND KUMAR
(SUJOY PAUL) (PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA)
MISHRA
Date: 2022.06.30 17:04:43 IST JUDGE JUDGE
MISHRA
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by ARVIND KUMAR
MISHRA
Date: 2022.06.30 17:04:43 IST
