LexMOHAMMED KHALID AND ANOTHER versus THE STATE OF TELANGANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
* Author [2024] 3 S.C.R. 23 : 2024 INSC 158 Mohammed Khalid and Another v. The State of Telangana (Criminal Appeal No(s). 1610 of 2023) 01 March 2024 [B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in affirming the judgment of the trial court convicting and sentencing the accused appellants for the charge u/s. 8(c) r/w. s.20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Headnotes Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.8(c) r/w. s.20(b)(ii)(c) – Prosecution case that PW-1-Inspector and team members intercepted a vehicle and A-1 and A-2 were present in the vehicle – It was alleged that three bundles of ganja weighing around 80 kgs found lying in the vehicle were seized in the presence of PW-1 and the panchas – A-1 and A-2 were arrested on the spot and interrogated – Acting on their interrogation/confession, A-3 and A-4 were arrested – Propriety: Held: A perusal of the evidence of the Seizure Officer (Inspector PW1) and the confession-cum-seizure panchnama (Exhibit P-3) would reveal that the prosecution claims to have recovered the contraband from three bags wherein the ganja as well as green chillies were present – Seizure Officer(Inspector PW-1) made no effort whatsoever to conduct a separate weighment of the contraband by segregating the chillies – Rather, the panchnama is totally silent about presence of chillies with the bundles of ganja – When PW-5-Investigating officer appeared for deposition, he produced the muddamal ganja in the Court and it was seen that the same was packed in seven new bags as against the three bags referred to in the seizure memo (Exhibit P-3) – Neither any proceedings were conducted nor any memo was prepared by the police officers for repacking the seized ganja bundles in new packaging – Two independent panchas were not examined – LW-10, who prepared three samples of ganja as per PW-5 was also not examined – In addition thereto, the prosecution neither 24 [2024] 3 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports examined any witness nor produced any document to satisfy the Court regarding safe keeping of the samples right from the time of the seizure till the same reached the FSL – No proceedings u/s. 52A were undertaken by the Investigating officer for preparing inventory and obtaining samples in presence of jurisdictional Magistrate – As far as A-3 and A-4 are concerned, it is not the case of the prosecution that the accused A-3 and A-4 were found in possession of ganja – The entire case of the prosecution as against these two accused is based on the interrogation notes of A-1 and A-2 – It is trite that confession of an accused recorded by a Police Officer is not admissible in evidence as the same is hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act – The evidence of the police witnesses is full of contradictions and is thoroughly unconvincing – The conviction of the accused appellants as recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court is illegal on the face of record and suffers from highest degree of perversity. [Paras 19-24] List of Acts Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Evidence Act, 1872. List of Keywords Recovery of narcotics; Confession-cum-seizure panchnama; Power of seizure and arrest in public place; Power to stop and search conveyance; Independent panch witnesses; Safe keeping of samples; Preparation of inventory; Obtaining samples in presence of jurisdictional Magistrate; Confession recorded by Police. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1610 of 2023 From the Judgment and Order dated 10.11.2022 of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in CRLA No. 594 of 2011 Appearances for Parties C. Nageswara Rao, Sr. Adv., Vikram Hegde, Chitwan Sharma, Ms. Chinmayi Shrivastava, Shreeyash Uday Lalit, Tushar Singh, Praseena Elizabeth Joseph, Advs. for the Appellants. Kumar Vaibhaw, Ms. Devina Sehgal, Mohd. Ashaab, Advs. for the Respondent. [2024] 3 S.C.R. 25 Mohammed Khalid and Another v. The State of Telangana Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Mehta, J. 1. These appeals take exception to the final impugned judgment dated 10th November, 2022 passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad rejecting the Criminal Appeal No. 594 of 2011 preferred by the appellants assailing the judgment dated 30th May, 2011 passed by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyde
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.