LexSMT. KRISHNA KANWAR@ THAKURAEEN versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
I' SMT. KRISHNA KANWAR@ THAKURAEEN V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN JANUARY 27, 2004 [DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASA YAT, JJ.] A B Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985-Sections 8, 21, 42(2) & 50-Accused found in possession of heroin during search-Trial Court and High Court convicted the accused-Compliance by the prosecution C of Sections 42(2), 50 and 57 of the Act-Held, there is no specific form prescribed or intended for conveying the information required to be given under Section 50 of the Act-On facts and evidence, there is no violation of any of the sections under the Act-Thus accused rightly convicted and sentenced. D Appellants-accused were found in possession of heroin during search by the Police on interception of their vehicle. They disclosed that they purchased heroin from accused M and N and earned money by selling them. This led to the arrest of accused M and N by the police. The prosecution framed charges against all the accused including the appellants. The trial court found the appellants guilty of offences E punishable under sections 8 and 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 14 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2 lakhs with default stipulation. Accused M and N were acquitted. The appellants preferred appeals before High Court. The State also filed an appeal before High F Court challenging the acquittal of accused M and N by the trial court. The High Court dismissed the appeals of the appellants and the State. Hence, the appeals by the appellants and the .State. During the pendency of the appeals before this Court, one of the appellants died and hence the appeal against him abated. The appellant-accused contended that the prosecution has violated the procedures envisaged under sections 42, 50 and 57 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 since it did not tender any evidence of any independent witness; that the independent witnesses, who I IOI G H 1102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) I S.C.R. A were examined, did not support the prosecution version on the ground that they had put the signatures on blank papers; that ther,t! are certain suspicious circumstances which corrode the prosecution version about safe dispatch of the alleged samples collected; that since accused Mand N have been acquitted, the source of procurement as allegedly done by the B appellants has not been established; and that the heroin recovered from the appellant was a fairly small quantity for which the sentence and fine are extremely high. The respondent-State contended that three highly placed officials were involved in the process of search and seizure and that there is no C reason for the appellant to falsely implicate her; that there was communication to the higher authorities and hence no violation of Section 42 of the Act as alleged by the appellants; that the requirements of Section 50 of the Act were complied with by intimating the appellants of her option and choice about the existence of her right of being searched by the police officer or by a gazetted officer and that on exercise of the option by the D appellant, there is no violation as alleged by the appellant; that the forensic laboratory report clearly indicates that the samples were sealed and the seals and tags were intact and on analysis the contents was found to be heroin. E F G Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: I.I. It is seen that Exb. P-32 contains the secret information that was received by PW-16. Constable PW-9 had categorically stated that he had taken the intimation to the S.P. and the Addi. S.P. The envelope was handed over to the S.P. The Addi. S.P. has been examined as PW-14 and presence of S.P. has been deposed by the witnesses. This clearly goes to show that there was receipt of information dispatched by Dy. S.P. PW- 16. That being so, merely because particulars of the dispatch number were not stated that would not corrode credibility of the evidence of the witnesses examined to establish that the information was conveyed to the higher officials. [1108-B, C, DJ 1.2. The Trial Court and the High Court, after analysing the evidence, have come to hold that there was compliance of section 42(2) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 in the sense that requisite documents were sent to the superior officer. Though the appellant tried to submit that
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.