Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manish Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 March, 2025
Author: Anuradha Shukla
Bench: Anuradha Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13469
1 CRA-9260-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
ON THE 18th OF MARCH, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 9260 of 2024
MANISH SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Ganga Prasad Patel - Advocate for appellant.
Ms. Shikha Singh Baghel - Panel Lawyer for State.
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been heard finally though I.A.No.33526/2024, an
application for suspension of sentence is pending.
2. Appellant herein stands convicted for the offence of Section 8 read
with Section 20(b)(ii-b) of the NDPS Ac, 1985 under the judgment passed on
01.08.2024 by Special Judge, NDPS Act, Narsinghpur, in Special Case
NDPS No.1/2023 and for this offence he has been sentenced to rigorous
imprisonment for three years and fine amount of Rs.5000/- with a default
clause to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for three months, in case
of non-payment of fine. This appeal has been preferred to challenge the
impugned judgment.
3. The limited grounds raised in this criminal appeal are that the
compliance of Section 52A of NDPS Act has not been observed in Union of
India Vs. Mohanlal and another AIR OnLine 2016 SC 606 and legal
procedure for drawing samples has been violated.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13469
2 CRA-9260-2024
4. According to prosecution, information was received that appellant
was carrying narcotics substance; a Mukhbir Suchana Panchnama was
prepared and information was sent to SDO(P), Narsinghpur; two witnesses
were summoned and after making preparation for raid, the police party left
for the spot on 13.03.2023. On reaching Khairi Naka, Hanuman Mandir at
around 8:00 p.m., appellant was nabbed; he was informed about the Mukhbir
Suchna and was made aware of his right under Section 50 of NDPS Act
regarding search. The police party gave its search to the appellant and
thereafter his bag was searched in which two packets containing Ganja were
recovered. The contents of these two packets were mixed together and made
homogeneous and thereafter samples were taken. The quantity of entire
Ganja was weighed and after seizure and sealing the contraband, appellant
was arrested. On return to police station, FIR was registered at Crime
No.167/2023 and necessary proceedings were undertaken. The sample seized
was sent to FSL from where the report was received confirming the presence
o f Ganja, hence, charge-sheet was filed. The appellant was convicted and
sentenced as aforesaid.
5. Prosecution has examined a number of witnesses in this case but the
most important testimony is of Seizure Officer i.e. Vishram Singh Dhurvey
(PW-8) who has stated that the entire proceedings disclosed in FIR (Exhibit-
P/27) were conducted in the presence of witnesses and no deviation was
made of any legal procedure. His testimony reveals that from the possession
of appellant, a bag was recovered containing two independent packets and
without ascertaining the contents of individual packets the whole quantity
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13469
3 CRA-9260-2024
was mixed together and made homogeneous before drawing the samples.
Legality of this procedure has been challenged here.
6. Indeed, the procedure adopted by the Seizure Officer reflects that
compliance of Section 52A of NDPS Act was not at all observed, as the
recovered narcotics substance was never produced before the concerned
Magistrate having an authority to draw samples. The entire proceedings of
drawing samples, seizure and sealing were undertaken by the Seizure Officer
and thus safeguards observed in the case of Union of India Vs. Mohan Lal
and another AIR OnLine 2016 SC 606 were violated. Further, the purity of
samples was also compromised as the samples were not drawn from
individual packets but the whole quantity was mixed together. In the absence
of legal safeguards, it can be very effectively argued that the entire quantity
was not a narcotic substance and by mixing together a non narcotic quantity,
the quantity of alleged contraband was increased. There is no explanation on
record for adopting a procedure alien to legal mandates for drawing samples
and also to justify the act of dropping off the legal safeguards. No arguments
have been submitted even before this Court to explain the legality of
procedure adopted for drawing samples.
7. Taking these infirmities into account, relating to procedure of
seizure and drawing the samples, the argument challenging conviction of
appellant under Section 8 read with Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, is
certainly appealing and has substance, as there appears no valid reason to
violate the purity of sample before drawing it and deviating from the
procedure prescribed in Section 52A of NDPS Act. Consequently, the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13469
4 CRA-9260-2024
conviction of appellant is hereby set-aside and accordingly, the appeal is
allowed.
8. The disposal of seized "Ganja" shall be ensured in accordance with
the direction of the trial court.
9. The appellant is in custody. He be released immediately. The fine
amount, if any, deposited by the appellant be refunded to him.
10. Let a copy of this judgment along with its record be sent to the trial
court for information and necessary compliance.
(ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE
NP
