LexRITESH CHAKARVARTI versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A RITESH CHAKARVARTI v. ST ATE OF MAD HY A PRADESH SEPTEMBER 29, 2006 B (S.B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985-Sections 8, 42 & 50-Recovery of opium on receipt of secret information by Inspector- Raiding team included said Inspector besides another Inspector and a Sub- C Inspector-The Sub-Inspector apprehended the accused and conducted search-Witnesses to the search turned hostile-Both Inspectors not examined-Entire prosecution case resting on testimony of the Sub- Inspector-Conviction by Courts be/ow-Sustainability of-Held, not sustainable-Appel/ant was gravely prejudiced by non-examination of the O two Inspectors-Evidence of the Sub-Inspector inconsistent and full of contradictions in material particulars-Further material witnesses not examined-Appellant entitled to benefit of doubt as prosecution case not proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Inspector 'S' in the Central Bureau of Narcotics received secret E information and recorded the same as Ex P/16. Subsequently a raiding team was constituted which included Inspectors 'B' & 'S' and Sub-Inspector PWS. PWS apprehended Appellant-accused and conducted search on which opium weighing 1,300 Kgs was allegedly recovered. Inspector 'S' was not examined. Inspector 'B' too was not examined. Both PWl, an autorickshaw driver and PW2, owner of Pan shop in front of the Narcotics Bureau, who were witnesses F to the search, were declared hostile. The entire prosecution case rested on the testimony of PWS. Special Judge convicted Appellant under S.8 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. High Court affirmed the conviction. Hence the present appeal. G Allowing the appeal, the Court H HELD: I. Appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt. (784-Hl 2. The genesis of the occurrence was obtaining of secret information from the informer. Concededly the informer gave full particulars thereof only 772 RITESHCHAKARVARTI \'. STATEOFMADHYA PRADESH 773 to Inspector 'S'. She was, therefore, the only competent witness to prove the A contents of Ex.P/16. A document as, is well known, does not prove itself. The contents are required to be proved by the maker thereof. Inspector 'S' alone could have proved the correctness or otherwise of the contents of the said document. It was all the more necessary as PW-5 conceded that all conversations between Inspector 'S' and the informer did not take place in B his presence. Why Inspector 'B' and Inspectors attached to the Bureau had not been examined has not been explained. Appellant has been gravely prejudiced by non-examination oflnspectors 'S' and 'B'. (780-D-E; 781-E) 3.1. PW-5 disclosed that the investigation team consisted of Inspector 'B', Inspector PW-6, Inspector 'S', himself, a few constables and a driver of C Government vehicle. They waited at the bus stop for about an hour, although the same was just in front of their office. The identity of Appellant had not been disclosed till then. Although a large number of persons might have passed through the road, Appellant alone was suspected and apprehended. How his identity came to be known is a mystery. (777-EJ D 3.2. Strangely enough, it is PW-5 himself who had spotted the accused first. Apart from spotting the accused, he searched him, recovered the contraband and interrogated him. He also carried out the sealing operations. Why other officers and constable being present, all work was done only by him is difficult to perceive. Why everything was left to be done by PW-5 alone is a mystery. (779-E, F; 780-DJ E 4. It may be true that PW-5 in his evidence proved Ex.P/13 but then he has contradicted himself in material particulars. Whereas at one place he said that the informer made his statements in his presence; but at another place he stated that he was made only a witness to the document. If he was present throughout, there is no reason as to why the entire statement was F not made by the informer in his presence. Even as regards the weight of the contraband and the nature of the bag in which the same was to be carried stood contradicted. His evidence, thus, was inconsistent. He, therefore, is not a reliable witness. (781-G, H; 782-AI 5.1. In a case under the NDPS Act, recovery of contraband in presence of the independent person assumes importance. In a large number of cases, this Court as also various High Courts have emphasized the need of conducting a search
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.