LexVIJAY JAIN versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 4 S.C.R. 293 VIJAY JA~N v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (Criminal Appeal No. 486 of 2013 etc.) JUNE 20, 2013 [A.K. PATNAIK AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.] Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: A B s. 8121 (c) - Conviction on the ground of seizure of c contraband goods from accused - Non production of contraband goods before court - Effect of - Held: As the prosecution has not produced before court, the brown sugar alleged to have been seized from appellants and has also not offered any explanation therefor and as the evidence of D witnesses to seizure does not establish seizure of brown sugar from appellants, judgment of trial court convicting the appellants and that of High Court maintaining the conviction are not sustainable and, as such, are set aside. The appellants were convicted uls 8/21 (c) of the E Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentenced to 10 years RI with a fine of Rs. 1 lakh each. The trial court and the High Court accepted the prosecution case that on a raid conducted by PW-11, the Thanedar lncharge (Tl) of the police station, the appellant F in Crl. A. No. 484 of 2013 was apprehended outside a flat with a suit case containing brown sugar and the other appellant was apprehended, inside the said flat, with brown sugar. The brown sugar from the appellants was stated to have been seized. G In the instant appeals, it was mainly contended that the conviction of the appellants could not be sustained for non-production before the trial court of the contraband 293 H 294 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013) 4 S.C.R A goods alleged to have been seized from them and the finding of the trial court that the contraband goods were produced in court was perverse. B Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. The finding of the trial court that the seized contraband goods were produced in a suitcase is contrary to the evidence of P.W. 11 (the Tl). There is no mention in the evidence of P.W. 11 of any brown sugar having been found in the suit case. The only C evidence before the court was that in the suit case in which the contraband goods were kept, when opened, there was only a big packet wrapped in cloth which contained clothes in a blue coloured polythene. There is, however, evidence that samples were prepared of D 25.25gms which were shown to the witnesses and were marked 81 82, but P.W. 3 (the witness of seizure) has stated before the court that these samples were not prepared in his presence and P.W. 2 (the other witness of seizure) has stated before the court that the witnesses E were not taken to the site where the materials were seized. [para 11] (300-F-G; 301-G-H; 302-A-8] 1.2. As the prosecution has not produced before the court, the brown sugar alleged to have been seized from the appellants and has also not offered any explanation F therefor and as the evidence of the witnesses (PW 2 and PW3) to the seizure of the materials does not establish the seizure of brown sugar from the possession of the appellants, the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants and that of the High Court maintaining the G conviction are not sustainable and, as such, are set aside. [para 12] [302-C-D] Jitendra & Anr v. State of M.P. 2003 (3) Suppl. SCR 918 = (2004) 10 SCC 562; Ashok v. State of M.P. 2011 H (4) SCR 253 = (2011) 5 sec 123 - relied on. VIJAY JAIN v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 295 Noor Aga v. State of Punjab and Another 2008 (10) A SCR 379 = (2008) 16 SCC 417 - referred to. Case Law Reference: 2003 (3) Suppl. SCR 918 relied on 2011 (4) SCR 253 relied on 2008 (10) SCR 379 referred to para 4 para 4 para 8 CRIMINAL APP ELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal B No. 486 of 2013. c From the Judgment & Order dated 21.02.2011 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in Criminal Appeal No. 1048 of 2007. WITH Crl. A. No. 484 of 2013 Sushil Kumar Jain, Puneet Jain, Pratibha Jain for the Appellant. D Ayesha Choudhary, Musharraf Choudhary, C.D. Singh for E the Respondent. The following Order of the Court was delivered ORDER 1. These are appeals by way of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India against the judgment and order dated 21st February, 2011 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1048 and 1172 of 2007. F 2. The facts very briefly are that on 5th May, 2004, R.C. G Pathak, Thanedar lncharge (Tl) of Police Station Anna
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.