LexABDUL RASHID IBRAHIM MANSLJRI versus STATE OF GUJARAT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
ABDUL RASHID IBRAHIM MANSlJRI
v.
STATE OF GUJARAT
FEBRUARY 1, 2000
(DR. A.S. ANAND, 0, K.T. THOMAS AND
S. RAJENDRA BABC, JJ.J
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 : s .
C 42(1}-Police officer searching conveyance driven by accused and recovering
four gunny bags af charas on basis of information received-Information not
reduced to writing and not communicated to superior officer-Held, s. 42 not
complied with; although trial may not be vitiated on that scope alone,
prejudice would be caused to the accused.
D
s. 35-Presumption of culpable mental state-Burden of proof-Dis-
charge of by accused-Held, would be discharged if it appears from prosecu-
tion case that accused could not have had knowledge or required intention,
even though accused has not adduced evidence of his own; in the instant case
non-recording of information at first instance was a circumstance in favour
of accused leading to discharge of burden of proof and he was not liable to
E be convicted.
On January 12, 1988 and auto·riclt.shaw driven by the appellant v1as
intercepted by a posse of police ]personnel led by PW 2 Inspector and four
gunny bags containing charas were found stacked in the vehicle. The
F appellant was arrested and prosecuted inter alia for an offence under s.
20(b) (ii) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
('Act').
G
During the trial, it transpired that PW 2 had proceeded to intercept
and search the vehicle on the basis of information which was neither
reduced to writing nor reported to his immediate superior as required
under s. 42(1) of the Act. The appellant admitted the search and the
recovery but maintained that th1~ bags were loaded on to the vehicle by two
persons who directed him to take the bags to the destination mentioned
by them. He had carried out the assignment without knowing the contents
H of the bags.
542
ABDl:L RASHID IBRAHIM MANSl:RI v. STATE
543
The trial court acquitted the appellant. On appeal by the State or A
Gujarat, the High Court or Gujarat set aside the acquittal, convicted the
ap11ellant and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a
line of one lakh rupees for the first count. The High Court held that tile
appellant had failed to prove that he had no knowledge of the contents of
the bag and that the presumption under s. 35 of the Act stood unrebutted.
Allowing the appeal, this Court
Held : 1.1. There was non-compliance with s. 42 of the Act. It was
imperative that the officer should ta!1e down in writing the information
received from any person that any narcotic drug was kept or concealed in
any building, conveyance or enclosed place and he shall forthwith send a
copy thereof to his immediate official superior. The action or the officer,
who claimed to have exercised it on the strength of sRch unrecorded infor-
mation would become suspect, thoRgh the trial may not be vitiated on that
score alone. Nonetheless the resultant position would be one or causin~
prejudice to the accused. [549-D; !'50-E-F)
State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, [1999) 6 SCC 172, followed.
Kalema Tumba v.State of Maharashtra, [1999] 8 SCC 257; Saljudas v.
State of Gujarat, (1999] 8 SCC 508 and State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh,
[1994) 3 sec 299, referred.
1.2. The non-recording of information bad deprived the appellant as
well as the court of the material to ascertain the precise information
received by PW-2 before proceeding to stop the vehicle. It could be counted
as a circumstance in favour of the accused. [550-G; 552-D)
2.1. The accused bad discharged the burden ofproofin such a manner
as to rebut the presumption envisaged in s. 35 of the Act. He was therefore,
not liable to be convicted for the offences pitted against him. [552-H]
B
c
D
E
F
2.2. Ir circumstances appearing in prosecution case were such as to G
give reaso11.able assurance to the court that appellant could not have had the
lmowledge or the required intention, the burden cast on the accused under
s. 35 of the Act would stand discharged even if he had not adduced any other
evidence of his own when called upon to enter on his defence. [552-8-C)
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. H
544
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2000] 1 S.C.R.
A 78of1992.
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.1.90 of the Gujarat High
Court in Crl.A. No. 358 of 1989.
Krishnan Kr. Mehrotra and Sudhir Nandrajog, (A.C.), Anip Sach-
B they, Y. Adhyaru, Badri Babu, MExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.