In a recent development, the Bombay High Court, presided over by Justice Anil L. Pansare, addressed a case involving an appeal challenging a judgment passed by a Special Judge under the NDPS Act. Justice Anil L. Pansare emphasized that the process of drawing samples must occur in the presence of and under the supervision of a Magistrate.
Brief Facts of the Case:
In the case at hand, Sunil Basant Malvi and Sohel @ Sohail Khan, the appellants, were accused of transporting Ganja from Koradi Road to Chindwara. The prosecution’s case relied on the seizure of two bags containing Ganja from a Swift Dzire car. The samples from these bags were drawn at the scene during the investigation.
Contentions of the Parties:
Appellants (Sunil Basant Malvi and Sohel @ Sohail Khan):
The appellants challenged their conviction under Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. Their counsel, Prakash Naidu, argued that the samples used as evidence were drawn at the scene of the seizure and not in the presence of a Magistrate, which violated the legal requirements. Naidu cited the Supreme Court case of Union of India v. Mohanlal to support his contention, emphasizing that the procedure for sample drawing must be in conformity with the law laid down in Mohanlal’s case.
State (Prosecution):
The state, represented by Ms. H. S. Dhande, Assistant Public Prosecutor, relied on the trial court’s judgment, which had found the appellants guilty of the NDPS Act offences. The prosecution contended that the samples drawn at the scene were valid and in accordance with the law. They argued against setting aside the trial court’s judgment and urged the High Court to uphold the conviction.
Observations by the Court:
The High Court noted that the samples drawn before the Magistrate on a specific date were not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). Instead, the samples drawn at the scene were sent to the FSL. The deviation from the prescribed procedure, as per Union of India vs. Mohanlal (2016 Latest Caselaw 90 SC), cast doubt on the prosecution’s case.
The High Court opined that the trial court had not properly considered the legal principles established in the Mohanlal case, resulting in an erroneous judgment.
Decision of the Court:
In light of these observations, the High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the impugned judgment, and ordered the appellants’ release.
Case Title: Sunil Basant Malvi v. Sohel
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Anil L. Pansare
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No.270/2023
Advocate for the Appellants: Prakash Naidu
Advocate for the Respondent: H. S. Dhande
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
