Allahabad High Court
Nafe Singh vs Union Of India on 12 July, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 ALL 1163, 2020 CRI LJ 1148, 2020 (1) ALJ 142, 2019 (109) ACC (SOC) 14 (ALL)
Author: Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
Bench: Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR RESERVED JUDGMENT Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 808 of 1991 Appellant :- Nafe Singh Respondent :- Union Of India Counsel for Appellant :- V.P.Srivastava,Nishi Mehrotra (Ac),P.P. Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A,Gyan Prakash Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
1. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 18.04.1991, passed by VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur, in Sessions Trial No. 553 of 1987, convicting the accused-appellant for the offence under Sections 20, 23 N.D.P.S. Act and sentencing him to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under each section along with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in each section and in default of fine one year additional rigorous imprisonment. It has further been directed that all the sentences will run concurrently.
2. Brief facts of the case as disclosed in the complaint and recovery memo is that on 20.04.1987, the Custom Inspector, Gorakhpur namely Sri Suresh Singh got information at 08:00 P.M. that a person is coming from Nepal with Nepali Charas on 20/21.04.1987 and will reach at Gorakhpur Railway Station in in the mid night. Custom Inspector Suresh Singh along with Rajesh Kumar Singh (Custom Inspector) and two Constables R.B. Ram and R.C. Tripathi reached at the station at about 10:00 P.M. At about 12.:30 in the mid night, a truck stopped in front of railway station coming from the side of Gorakhnath and a person with a wallet stepped down from the truck. On inquiry by the Custom Inspector and his team, the person revealed his address and name. Thereupon, he was taken to the Regional Office, Custom Department, Gorakhpur. There, the Custom Inspector himself, before independent witnesses, conducted search in person of the accused and from his wallet, 21 rolls with two broken pieces of Charas were recovered. On being asked, he disclosed him name to be Nafe Singh son of Balwant Singh, resident of Badari old Delhi and he voluntarily confessed that after purchasing the Charas from Nepal, he was going to sell the same in Delhi. Because there was no weighing machine, therefore, the recovered Charas was delivered in the custody of Guard/witness Nanhku Ram deputed there and the Custom Inspector and other witnesses went back.
3. In the morning, at about 07:00 A.M., they came back in the office and took the recovered Charas to Shiv Mishthan Bhandar where on being weighed, the Charas was found to be 1 Kg. and 350 gms. The recovered Charas was sealed in a clothe and sample was also taken . The memo of recovery which was started to be written in the night itself but because, the Charas was not being weighed by that time, the memo was completed after weighing the same in the morning. The memo was written by Ganga Singh on the dictation of Custom Inspector Suresh Singh. On the basis of recovery, Custom Inspector Rajesh Kumar Singh filed a complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur from where the case was committed to the court of sessions.
4. The accused was charged for the offence under Section 20/23 N.D.P.S. Act and on denial, he was tried for the said offence.
5. The statement of PW-1 (Custom Inspector) Suresh Singh and PW-2 Nanhku Ram was recorded, who have proved Ext. Ka-1 Recovery Memo, Ext. Ka-2 statement of the accused Nafe Singh dated 21.04.1987 and Ext. Ka-3 search list. Custom Inspector Rajesh Kumar Singh was also examined on being summoned by the court as CW-1, who proved the complaint as Ext-1.
6. The Statement of the accused appellant was recorded Under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure who said that all the witnesses are departmental witnesses and they have given false evidence against him. In fact, he had come in relation to a marriage to his relative Moti Lal and he was on station in order to get a train for Delhi and when he was trying to purchase a ticket, he was asked by a person, what is inside his bag and on being said that there was clothes and on being asked, who he is, a hot conversation took place and he was taken into custody and a false case was prepared against him. They got his signature on a blank paper. There is no report of chemical examination nor any sample was taken for that purpose.
7. After hearing the prosecution and the counsel for the accused, the learned trial court has passed the impugned judgment and convicted the accused-appellant.
8. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the convicted appellant has filed this appeal on the ground that the impugned judgment is against the evidence on record and the mandatory provisions of section 4(2), 42, 44, 50, 52 and 55 of the N.D.P.S. Act have not been complied. The sentences are too severe and the judgment is not sustainable under law.
9. Heard Ms. Nishi Mehrotra, the learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant, Sri Gyan Prakash, the learned counsel for Union of India and learned A.G.A. Shri L. D. Rajbhar.
10. PW-1 is (Custom Inspector) Suresh Singh who has stated that on 20.4.1987 about 8 P.M., he got information that a person is coming with certain Nepali articles including charas and he will be going to Delhi from Railway Station Gorakhpur. Look and feature of such person was also communicated to him. He along with Rajesh Singh (Inspector) and two constables Rambrichh Ram and Ramchandra Tripathi reached in front of Railway Station at 09:45 P.M. At 12.30 A.M. in the mid night, a truck dropped a person carrying a small wallet who proceeded towards Station. On being asked he said that he was coming from Nepal and going to Delhi. Disclosing his identity, PW-1 asked him for search of his wallet. He refused and said that he will permit his search only before a Magistrate or Officer of Custom Department. He was taken to the Regional Office of custom, but no such officer was available. Therefore, search was conducted by him in presence of witnesses and 21 roll and 2 pieces of charas was recovered in a polythene which was found in his wallet about which he said and gave in writing voluntarily that he was carrying the same from Nepal and taking it to sell in Delhi. Since, there was no weighing machine, the witness handed over the accused with recovered charas to the Guard Nanhku Ram who was deputed there.
11. PW-1 has further stated that in the morning, at 07:00 A.M., the witness reached there. The recovered charas was found in the same condition as it was delivered to the Guard. The recovered charas with accused and witnesses was taken to Shiv Mishthan Bhandar and was weighed there which was found to be 1 kg and 350 gm. Thereafter, they came back to office and one roll of charas was broken into 4 pieces and all kept in 4 separate envelops and sealed and one envelop was sent to each Gwalior Laboratory, Banaras and to Addl. Collector, Custom and one envelop was preserved in the office. The remaining charas was sealed in the same wallet after keeping it in the same polythene. Recovery Memo Ext. Ka-1 was written by Gangaram on which he, Inspector Rajesh, Gangaram and Nanhku and accused Nafe signed. The written statement of accused in which he voluntarily confessed that he was taking the recovered charas from Nepal to Delhi and the same is Ext. Ka-2. Search list is also on record which is Ext. Ka-3.
12. PW-2 Nanhku Ram has stated that he was deputed as guard on 20/21.4.1987 in Regional Custom Office, Gorakhpur when at about 12:45 A.M. in the night, Inspector Suresh Singh and Rajesh Singh came with accused Nafe Singh in the Office who was carrying a wallet in his hand. He was searched before him and from his wallet 21 roll and 2 broken piece of charas was recovered and after disclosing his name, the accused voluntarily gave a written and signed statement that he was carrying the recovered charas from Nepal and was taking it to Delhi on which he also signed which is Ext. Ka-2. Since no weighing instrument was available in the night, accused along with charas was handed over to him and the same was weighed in the next day morning in Shiv Mishthan Bhandar which was found to be 1 kg 350 gm. Search list and recovery memo was prepared before him on which he also signed which are Ext. Ka-1 and Ext. Ka-3. Inspector Suresh Singh took five pieces of recovered charas and sealed all five in a cloth and remaining charas was sealed in the same wallet of accused and on both sealed he also signed. The witness identified the sealed items before court which is Ext.-I.
13. CW-1 Inspector Rajesh Singh is complainant who proved the complaint as Ext. C-I and as witness of recovery and the process thereof, he has also proved Ext. Ka-1 and Ka-2 and has stated about the whole incident similar to what has been stated by PW-1. He has stated that on information received, he with Inspector Suresh Singh and two constables reached at Railway Station and at 12.30 A.M. in the midnight the accused stepped down from truck with a wallet. He insisted that he will permit his search before a gazetted officer and therefore he was taken to the Regional Office but no officer was available there. Therefore, he was searched by them before witnesses Nanhku Ram and Rajaram and from his wallet charas was recovered. Accused confessed that he took charas from Nepal and was going to Delhi to sell the same. Since no weighing machine was available, therefore, recovered charas and accused were handed over to Guard Nanhku Ram. Next day morning, charas was measured in Shiv Mishthan Bhandar which was found to be 1 kg and 350 gms. They returned to office sample of recovered charas was kept in 4 envelop and sealed and remaining charas was sealed in the same wallet. Recovery memo was prepared and the witnesses, accused and he signed on it. The statement of accused was taken. He filed complaint before the court.
14. The prosecution case being based on recovery, therefore, the learned Amicus Curiae Ms. Nishi Mehrotra has very vehemently argued that the due procedure was not followed in conducting search and preparing recovery memo. She has submitted that there is material contradiction in the statement of the witness which makes the whole recovery suspicious and the procedure adopted by the search team was not legal.
15. It appears from record that on the date of recovery of charas from accused, the search team was having prior information at 8 P.M. and they reached Railway Station at about 10 P.M. The Railway Station is at the distance of 10-15 minutes. It means that the team spent more than one and half an hour in their office and even then they did not arrange public witness nor they arranged any weighing machine for the measurement of the psychotropic substance which was likely to be recovered by them. On reaching Railway station, they waited there for more than two hours, even then the team did not manage public witness nor any weighing machine, although, the team was consisted of 4 members and any of the four members could have been sent to manage the same. It was not done and search was conducted in presence of departmental witnesses as PW-2 is Guard in the department.
16. The absence of independent public witness is also very crucial in such kind of situation. It is true that it is not always necessary to have a public witness during recovery. It has been held in Jarnail Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2011 CRLJ 1738(SC) and Ajmer Singh Vs. State of Haryana, (2010) 3 SCC 746, it has been held by the Supreme Court that the obligation to take public witnesses(independent witness) is not absolute. If after making efforts which the court considers in the circumstances of the case reasonable the police officer is not able to get public witnesses to associate with the raid or arrest of the culprit, the arrest and the recovery made would not be necessarily vitiated. The court will have to appreciate the relevant evidence and will have to determine whether the evidence of the police officer is believable after taking due care and caution in evaluating their evidence. Therefore, it was incumbent for the search team to conduct search before public witness as it was having prior information and sufficient time to involve public witness during search. But admittedly, no such effort was made by the search team and this further makes the whole search seriously suspicious.
17. The search team, thus, conducted the whole search in absence of any public witness. Secondly, since they did not have any weighing machine, they postpone the process till next day morning and till then the accused and recovered charas was handed over to the Guard who was also made a witness of recovery. Till the next day, the recovered charas was not sealed and the same was handed over to the Guard. It means that the recovered charas remained unsealed in possession of a Guard, who is also a recovery witness, for the whole night. This single fact vitiates the whole recovery process. No documentation was made regarding handing over of accused and charas to the Guard. PW-1 has stated that half of the recovery memo was prepared on the same day and the same was completed on the next day after the recovered charas was measured. If it was so, on the recovery memo prepared partly on first day should have been separately prepared and signed by witnesses and accused. From the perusal of the recovery memo, it is clear that the same is in the handwriting of Gangaram and the same has been written in continuity and one stroke of pen and there is nothing to support this contention that any part of that was written on first day. Moreover, if it was so, the same should have been mentioned in the recovery memo itself.
18. Another argument has been with regard to compliance of mandatory provision of section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act. The learned Amicus Curiae has argued that the search team did not comply with the mandatory provision of section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
19. Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act is as follows:
"Section 50: Conditions under which search of person shall be conducted :-
(1) When any officer duly authorized Under Section. 42 is about to search any person under the provisions of Section 41, Section 42 or Section 43, he shall, if such person so requires, take such person without unnecessary delay to the nearest Gazettted Officer of any of the departments mentioned in Section 42 or to the nearest Magistrate.
(2) If such requisition is made, the officer may detain the person until he can bring him before the Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate referred to in sub-section (1).
(3) The Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate before whom any such person is brought shall, if he sees no reasonable ground for search, forthwith discharge the person but otherwise shall direct that search be made.
(4) No female shall be searched by anyone excepting a female.
(5) When an officer duly authorized under section 42 has reason to believe that it is not possible to take the person to be searched to the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate without the possibility of the person to be searched parting with possession of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, or controlled substance or article or document, he may, instead of taking such person to the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, proceed to search the person as provided under section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).
6. After a search is conducted under sub-section (5), the officer shall record the reasons for such belief which necessitated such search and within seventy-two hours send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior."
20. Section 50 provides reasonable safeguard to the accused before search of his person is made by an officer authorized under section 42 of the Act to conduct search. In State of Punjab Vs. Baldev Singh, (1999) 6 SCC 172 (Five Judge Bench), it was settled by the supreme court that search of person Under Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act does not include search & recovery from bag, briefcase and container etc. Sec. 50 applies where personal search of a person is involved. In T. Hamza vs State of Kerala, (2000) 1 SCC 300, it has been clarified that section 50 has been incorporated to provide statutory safeguard to lend credibility and fairness and to avoid arbitrariness keeping in view the severe punishment prescribed in the statute. It has been further clarified in Megh Singh vs State of Punjab, (2003) 8 SCC 666, that section 50 applies only in case of personal search of a person and does not extend to search of a vehicle, container, bag or premises. In Ajmer Singh Vs. State of Haryana, (2010) 3 SCC 746 and Jarnail Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2011 CrLJ 1738 (SC) 1, the above view was further affirmed.
21. In Kulwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2015) 6 SCC 674 Where bags containing poppy husk were seized from truck in his the accused were sitting, it has been held by the Supreme Court that it was not a case of personal search of the accused and Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 was not attracted as Section 50 only applies in case of personal search of person and not applicable to search of vehicle, container, bag or premises.
22. In this instant case, the prosecution version is that the illegal charas was recovered from the accused from the wallet he was carrying. It was not recovered from the search of his person. This fact has been proved by the prosecution witnesses. Thus, PW-1 Inspector Suresh Singh and CW-1 Inspector Rajesh Singh has stated that 1 kg and 350 gm charas was recovered from the small wallet which the accused was carrying. PW-2 Bachaulal is the public witness of recovery and he has also stated that the charas was recovered from the wallet of the accused.
23. But the learned Amicus Curiae has argued that PW-2 has stated that a personal search of the accused was also conducted as PW-2 has stated in his examination-in-chief that accused was searched before him and Gangaram and from his wallet charas was recovered (^^vfHk;qDr dh bPNkuqlkj esjs o xaxk jke ds lkeus mldh ryk'kh yh x;h rks mlds >ksys ls ,d iksyhFkhu ds FkSyh esa pjl ds 21 jksy iwjs o 2 VqdMs+ cjken gq,^^). Referring to the judgment in State of Rajasthan vs Parmanand, (2014) 4 SCC 780, it has been argued that where wallet carried by accused is searched and his person is also searched, section 50 will be applicable.
24. In the complaint itself, it has been mentioned that in the office, accused in person was searched and from his wallet charas was recovered. This complaint has been proved by CW-1 Inspector Rajesh Singh. The fact of personal search is further corroborated by the Search List Form Ext. Ka-3 which has been proved by PW-1 and he has stated that the same is correct. Para-4 of the search list is details of search and below column-i titled- Place searched in order of search - in person and below column-iii titled- Remark- Recovered from personal search of accused- is written. Again, it is written in the recovery memo Ext. Ka-1 that 90 rupees were also recovered from the accused which was returned to him after completing recovery process. It has been no where mentioned that 90 rupees were found in the wallet in which charas was kept and accused being male, it is natural that it must have been found in his pocket. This shows that the team made personal search also and therefore, compliance of section 50 N.D.P.S. Act was necessary.
25. Neither in the recovery memo nor in the complaint, it has been anywhere mentioned that the accused was informed by the search team about his right of being searched before a magistrate or gazetted officer. It is only in the statements of PW-1 and CW-1, it has come that the accused insisted that he should be searched before a magistrate or officer of Custom Department. From the recovery memo, it appears that it starts from the time when the accused was taken to Regional Office of the Custom Department. The remaining version that the witnesses reached at Railway Station on information and checked the accused and on his saying that he insisted for search in presence of gazetted officer and therefore he was taken to Regional Office does not find mention in the recovery memo. Nor it has been mentioned that none of the higher officers were present in the office. It finds mention in the confessional statement of the accused only, the voluntariness thereof is extremely doubtful.
26. In the complaint which was prepared by the counsel and filed before the learned trial court after more than two months from the date of recovery, it has not been mentioned that the accused was informed about his right to be searched before a magistrate or gazetted officer. The complaint has been filed by CW-1 Inspector Rajesh Singh who has proved the complaint and has stated that the complaint was prepared by his counsel and the same was got typed by him. He has further stated that the counsel prepared complaint on the basis of description given by him and after type written, he read and signed on it and filed in the court. But in the complaint it has been written that the accused stepped down from truck at 8:45 which is totally against the prosecution case, It is pertinent to mention that this witness is witness of recovery also. Therefore, the statements of witnesses given during trial on the point of accused insisting on search before gazetted officer appears to be an improvement to avoid the lapse on this legal requirement and the benefit thereof shall certainly go to appellant. Moreover, if the accused was taken to Regional Office and when no authorised superior officer was found, why not any effort was made to take him to some magistrate or any other officer of any other department. It is clear from the evidence on record that no such effort was made.
27. It has been held in State of Rajasthan vs Ram Chandra, (2005) 5 SCC 151 and Vijaychand Chandubha Jadeja vs State of Gujarat, (2011) 1 SCC 609 that Section 50 provides additional safeguard and stress is on adoption of just, fair and reasonable procedure and the first requirement is to inform the suspect about existence of such right. None of the documents prepared during search shows that the search team communicated the accused of his right to be searched before gazetted officer. In Suresh vs State of MP, (2013) 1 SCC 550, it has been held that section 50 is mandatory in nature and non-compliance would entail an order of acquittal.
28. The prosecution witnesses developed a story during trial that the accused himself insisted for search before a gazetted officer. This fact finds mention in the written statement of the accused dated 21.4.1987 at 12.30 A.M. in the night and also at 8 A.M. in the morning (Ext. Ka-2) and therefore the search team took him to Regional Office where no officer was present and the search was conducted before Gangaram and PW-2 Nanhku. The accused has denied to have given any such statement and has stated that he was there in a marriage in a relation and was returning back to Delhi. An exchange of hot conversation took place with search team who wanted to see his wallet. He was beaten by him and was locked in police station and was falsely implicated and his signature was taken on blank papers. If it is assumed that the accused wrote above statement, it is seemingly unnatural and does not suit to reasoning that a person who was so conscious about his legal right to be searched before a gazetted officer, would make such written statement without any pressure.
29. It can be imagined in what pressure he must have written the same and therefore, it cannot be accepted that the same was voluntarily written by him. The statement above is confessional in nature and it has not been shown or mentioned in any document that it was explained to him that it would be used against him in evidence during trial. Moreover, when he insisted to be searched before a gazetted officer what was the need for conducting search by search team, particularly when there was no possibility of his running away being in the control and possession of the search team in their Regional Office and also that the search process was completed in the morning. The search may have been conducted before any gazetted officer or magistrate in the morning itself. This makes the whole search suspicious and in non-compliance of mandatory provision of section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act.
30. It has been further pointed out that the recovered charas was not properly sealed and there is discrepancy on this point in the statements of prosecution witnesses. For instance, PW-1 and CW-1 has stated that 4 samples were taken by breaking one roll of recovered charas and were sealed separately and remaining was sealed in the wallet of accused from which charas was recovered. PW-2 has however stated in his examination-in-chief that 5 samples were taken and they were sealed in a single clothe and remaining charas was sealed in one larger clothe on which he put his signature. The recovery memo also contains that recovered charas was sealed in a clothe and sample was taken. It was four or five samples, it has been nowhere mentioned in the recovery memo. Such discrepancy occurs only when due procedure has not been followed. This is a material contradiction and it becomes doubtful that the recovered charas and the sample was sealed properly before the witnesses.
31. From the above discussion, it is clear that the search team did not inform the accused of his right to be searched before a gazetted officer or magistrate. In the fact and circumstances of the case, it can be hardly believed that the accused was well informed about his right and if he was so informed that he himself made request, despite his alleged demand (?) from search team, no search was conducted before a gazetted officer or magistrate. Despite sufficient time and prior information, no effort was made to involve public witness in the process of search and recovery. The search team did not carry a weighing instrument also and consequently they left the recovered charas in possession of a Guard and made him a witness and prior to handing over of the same, the search team did not take pain to seal it and thereby committed a very serious lapse on the basis of which whole trial would certainly vitiate. From the complaint and evidence, it is established that accused was searched in person also and the mandatory provision of section 50 was not complied with. There is material contradiction, discrepancy and improvement in the testimony of prosecution witnesses which has seriously effected the credibility of prosecution case. The learned trial court has ignored the shortcomings and lapse in the prosecution version, recovery process and evidence and the finding of the learned trial court is perverse and illegal. The impugned judgment convicting and sentencing the accused is not sustainable under law and is liable to be set aside.
32. In a crime based on recovery of illegal drugs for which stringent provision in terms of procedure and punishment has been provided in the N.D.P.S. Act, it is necessary to ensure free and fair investigation without any objectionable features and infirmities. Presumption against innocence based on possession of illegal drug and shifting the burden of proof on accused requires fair and untainted investigation without any glimpse of malice, mischief, doubt, falsity, fabrication and prejudice to the accused. Fairness and purity in investigation is so necessary for criminal justice administration that without it fair trial will become a mockery and will result in miscarriage of justice.
32. The appeal is therefore allowed. The impugned judgment dated 18.04.1991 passed by VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur, in Sessions Trial No. 553 of 1987 is set aside and accused-appellant Nafe Singh is acquitted from the charge under sections 20/23 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
33. The Amicus Curaie MS. Nishi Mehrotra shall be paid Rs. Ten Thousands only for the assistance and legal service provided by her in conducting this appeal for the accused-appellant.
34. Office is directed to transmit the lower court record along with copy of this judgment to the learned court below for information and necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 12.07.2019 sailesh (Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)