Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ajay @ Lala Pal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 December, 2023
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 10585 of 2023
(AJAY @ LALA PAL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 20-12-2023
Shri Abhinav Shrivastava - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ramanuj Choubey - P.L. for the State.
Considered I.A.No.19910/2023, which is first application u/s 389(1)
Cr.P.C. on behalf of appellant-Ajay @ Lala Pal.
Vi d e impugned judgment dated 25.7.2023 passed in SC NDPS
No.86/2021 by Special Judge (NDPS Act), Rewa the appellant/applicant has
been convicted for offences under sections 8(c ) r/w 20(c ) of NDPS Act and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs.1,00,000/- with default
stipulations.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that impugned judgment is
bad in law and evidence. The trial Court failed to observed that PW.1
(Indrabhan Singh) has himself not supported the prosecution case. He is most
important witness and in view of his testimony, it was not correct to convict the
appellant under NDPS Act. He further submitted that appellant has been falsely
implicated. He further stated that mere presence of appellant in the premises
cannot be assumed that he was guilty of offence under NDPS Act. No
contraband has been seized from the appellant. Offence u/s 8(c ) of NDPS Act
is not made out against appellant. Trial Court has failed to observe that
testimonies of witnesses including PW.2, that on what basis the appellant has
been arrayed as an accused. He further submitted that trial Court failed to
observe that Ashok Verma (PW.3) has stated that he has not gone to place of
incident and despite that his signatures were stated to be present on search
memorandum. He further submitted that appellant was ot the owner of the
premises and according to Exhibit-P/18 no contraband has been seized from
the possession of the appellant. He further submitted that no charge u/s 29 of
NDPS Act has been levelled against the appellant. So, prima facie no
conspiracy is made out. He cited decision in the case of Ismail Khan Aiyub
Khan PathanVs. State of Gujarat, (2000) 10 SCC 257 and submitted that
presence of the accused in the room from where contraband has been seized
from another person, no presumption can be drawn from such evidence that
contraband was in possession of the accused. Hence, prayer has been made to
suspend the jail sentence of appellant.
Learned Panel Lawyer has opposed the prayer for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail.
He a r d learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case, perusal of Exhibit-
P/18, paragraphs 11 & 20 of evidence of PW.1 and final disposal of this
appeal would take time and without commenting on merits of the case, the
application is allowed.
Subject to depositing the fine amount (if not already deposited), the
remaining jail sentence of this appellants is hereby suspended and it is directed
that appellant-Ajay @ Lala Pal be released on bail on his furnishing a
personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lac only) with one
solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court
with a further direction to appear before concerned trial Court, on 20th of
March, 2024 and also on such other dates as may be fixed by the trial Court in
this regard during the pendency of this appeal.
I.A.No.19910/2023 is allowed.
(HIRDESH)
JUDGE
RM
