Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vinod Kumar Sharma vs Union Of India Through Narcotic Control ... on 24 August, 2020
Author: Shailendra Shukla
Bench: Shailendra Shukla
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
Cr. A. No.1451 of 2019
(Vinod Kumar Sharma vs. State of MP)
Indore, dated : 24.08.2020
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned counsel for the appellant Vinod Kumar
Sharma is present in person through Video Conferencing.
Shri Manoj Soni, learned counsel for the respondent is present in
person through Video Conferencing.
Per Shailendra Shukla, J.
Considered I.A. No.3290/2020, which is an application for urgent hearing.
For the reasons assigned in the application, I.A. No.3290/2020 stands allowed and disposed of.
Also considered I.A. No.1661/2020, which is second application filed under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. on behalf of appellant - Vinod Kumar Sharma S/o Mangilal.
The appellant has been convicted and sentenced by the Additional Special Judge, Mandsaur, vide its judgement dated 13.12.2018 passed in S. S. T. No.700016/2015 as under :-
S. Conviction under Sentence
No. Section Imprison- Fine Imprison
ment Amount -ment in
lieu of fine
1 8(c)/18 of NDPS Act 10 years RI Rs.1,00,000/- 1 year RI
His earlier application which was temporary suspension of jail sentence has been rejected vide order dated 30.09.2019.
As per prosecution story on 16.01.2015, pursuant to a secret information received, the preventive squad of Narcotics Control Bureau, Indore intercepted a motorcycle. Shri Vimal Dhaka who is the officer of NCB, Indore after adopting due procedure pertaining to giving notice etc. 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE Cr. A. No.1451 of 2019 (Vinod Kumar Sharma vs. State of MP) under Section 50 of NDPS Act conducted search of motorcycle bearing registration No.MP14 BC 7981 and found a polythene bag hidden in the cavity below seating. On testing, substance was found to be Opium and on weighing, it was found to weigh 5.850 kilograms of Opium, which is commercial quantity. Appellant in his statement recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act admitted to have carried Opium with him.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Seizing Officer Vimal Dhaka could not have been the Investigating Officer, that appellant has been falsely implicated. It has been submitted that appellant had been going on a four wheeler which was recently purchased by him but the aforesaid four wheeler suffered from an accident and thereafter, appellant had been going on a motorcycle to file claim but he was intercepted by Narcotics people and was dumped in a Bolero vehicle and his signatures were taken on various documents. He further submits that appellant himself had deposed as a defence witness and the call records of his mobile phone would have proven his defence.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State was also heard who submits that in the present case, Seizing Officer and the Investigating Officer are not one and the same person.
Record was perused.
Vimal Dhaka (PW-5) has stated that he had received an information on mukhbir which was noted by him and intimated to his senior officer Vijay Singh (PW-4) who was posted as Superintendent in NCB, Indore who directed Vimal Dhaka to proceed further. Vimal Dhaka proceeded to the spot and after intercepting the vehicle, conducted all proceedings but he specifically stated in para-36 that he had not filed the complaint on behalf of NCB but complaint had been filed by Farhad, another officer in NCB, Indore Thus, one can see that the complainant and the investigator 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE Cr. A. No.1451 of 2019 (Vinod Kumar Sharma vs. State of MP) are two different persons and therefore, citation of Mohan Lal vs. The State of Punjab passed in Cr. Appeal No.1880/2011 dated 16.08.2018 would not be applicable in the present case. The defence of appellant to the effect that his motorcycle was snatched by officers and he was dumped in a Bolero vehicle has been raised in paras-36 and 37 of the evidence of Vimal Dhaka (PW-5) and appellant has also adduced evidence to the same effect. However, appellant in para-8 of his cross-examination has admitted that he had not filed any report in police regarding his accidented vehicle. He states that he has purchased four wheeler but his registration papers have not been submitted by him and he has not called the vehicle owner in his defence. The statement of appellant under Section 67 of NDPS are considered in para-34 of the judgement and his evidence has also been considered by the Trial Court in para-73 of the judgement.
After due consideration of the aforesaid, no case is made out for suspension of jail sentence to the appellant. IA No.1661/2020 stands rejected accordingly.
(S. C. Sharma) (Shailendra Shukla)
Judge Judge
gp
Digitally signed by Geeta Pramod
Date: 2020.08.25 11:29:40 +05'30'