Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Pawan Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan on 1 August, 2022
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1387/2018
Pawan Kumar S/o Sh. Kewal Krishan, Aged About 31 Years, B/c
Sindhi , Ward No 10, Gandhi Nagar, Hanumangarh Junction , P.s.
Hanumangarh Junction , Tehsil And Distt. Hanumangarh (Lodged
In Distt. Jail Hanumangarh )
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. T.S. Champawat a/w Mr. Kamlesh
Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Sharma, P.P.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment Reserved on 07/07/2022 Pronounced on 01/08/2022
1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred under Section 374 Cr.P.C. praying for the following reliefs:-
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed and order impugned dated 15.11.2018 passed by the Learned Special Judge (NDPS Cases), Hanumangarh, in Session Case No. 06/2017, may kindly be set aside and quashed and appellant may set at liberty."
2. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the order, dated 15.11.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act Cases), Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No. 06/2017 whereby the appellant was convicted for the offences under Sections 8(c) read with Section 22(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act 1985 ("the Act of 1985") and sentenced to 15 years R.I. along with a fine of Rs. 1.5 lakhs, in default of payment of which he was to undergo further 1 year's R.I. (Downloaded on 04/08/2022 at 08:17:46 PM) (2 of 6) [CRLAS-1387/2018]
3. Brief facts of the case, as revealed from a perusal of the record, are that on 28.10.2016, at about 01:05 p.m. the then S.H.O. Sub-Inspector Ranveer Singh were travelling along with other police officials in a Jeep, and that when they were at the Civil Line Industrial Area, they saw a man with a plastic bag acting suspiciously, and upon seeing the police team, attempted to flee from the scene. And that, when he was apprehended, he revealed his name to be Pawan Kumar R/o Hanumangarh aged about 29 years i.e. the present accused-appellant, who upon being questioned about the contents of the plastic bag he was carrying with him, he gave an unsatisfactory reply, and when the contents of the same were checked, several packets of tablets were found. And subsequently, in the presence of motbir witnesses, the accused appellant was given notice under Section 50 of the Act of 1985, and upon his consent and signing of such notice, a search of his person was conducted and 15,000 pink tablets in 25 boxes, were found. And that, when the same were checked by Mr. Prem Singh, the concerned medicine control officer, the same were found to be Alprazolam tablets I.P. 0.5 m.g. (Prozolam - 0.5) B.N. NHN - 117 MFG July 2015 Exp. JUN. 2018 M.R.P. Rs. 20/- PER 10 TABS, INCL ALL TAXES. Composition- Each uncoated tablet contains: Alprazolam I.P. 0.5 m.g. Excipients q.s. colour: Erythrosine Manufactured in India by: Neutec Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. E-698, DSIDC Narela, Industrial Area, Delhi - 110040, were found. And that, no license or authority to carry the same was produced by the appellant. Upon being weighed on an electronic weighing scale, each tablet was found to weigh 240 milligrams and the total contraband was (Downloaded on 04/08/2022 at 08:17:46 PM) (3 of 6) [CRLAS-1387/2018] found to weigh about 3.6 kgs. From the tablets so seized, from one box, two samples of 50 tablets each were taken and placed in a plastic bag which was then placed in a cloth bag, and were sealed, and the stamp/mark was placed. Therefore, of the 25 boxes, 24 boxes containing 600 tablets each, and 1 box containing 500 tablets, the remainder after taking the samples out, totalling 14,900 tablets were placed in a plastic bag and then in a cloth bag, and were sealed, upon which the requisite stamp/mark was placed. And upon following the requisite due process of law under Section 52 of the Act of 1985, the accused appellant was arrested and taken into custody, and was questioned and a report was generated under Section 67 of the Act of 1985. And that, the investigating officer filed a charge- sheet against the accused appellant (Pawan Kumar) and one Gaurav Kumar @ Vishal @ Gauru for the offences under Sections 8/21, 22, 29 Act of 1985. And that, thereafter, the learned Court below framed charges against the accused for the offence under Section 8/22 of the Act of 1985. And that, of the two accused, the learned Court below while acquitting Gaurav Kumar @ Vishal @ Gauru of all the charges levelled against him therein, convicted and sentenced the present appellant, as above.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the case has been falsely foisted upon the appellant, and that he has nothing to do with the recovery alleged to have been made from him.
(Downloaded on 04/08/2022 at 08:17:46 PM)
(4 of 6) [CRLAS-1387/2018]
5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the Department of Health Family Welfare Notification dated 30.08.2013, has omitted Alprazolam from Schedule H and inserted it in Schedule -H1 at No. 1 and that it falls under the purview of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and not under the N.D.P.S. Act 1985.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant tried to impress upon this Court, that looking into the definition clause of the Act of 1985, which opens with the phrase, "In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires" and that the context as such under Section 8 of the Act of 1985 is indeed different with respect to what would constitute a 'psychotropic substance'.
7. In support of the said submission, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgments of Ramesh Mehta Vs. Sanwal Chand Singhvi and Ors. (2004) 5 SCC 409.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the recovery witness P.W. 3 Gurdeep Singh turned hostile and did not support the version of the prosecution.
9. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and submitted that the learned Court below has rightly passed the well reasoned impugned judgment of conviction, on the basis of the air-tight evidence placed on the record and looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case.
10. Heard learned counsel for both parties and perused the record of the case, alongwith the judgment cited at the Bar. (Downloaded on 04/08/2022 at 08:17:46 PM)
(5 of 6) [CRLAS-1387/2018]
11. This Court observes that the contention raised on behalf of the appellant that he was being falsely implicated, as no recovery of any contraband was made from him and that the entire version of the prosecution was a fabrication, and that the due process of law was not followed as the proceedings were conducted in the concerned police station, has rightly been disbelieved by the learned Court below, after looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, and the evidences placed on record before it.
12. This Court observes that the F.S.L. report, at Ex.P/22, reveals that the sample packets which were sent by the concerned police authorities for examination contained the tablets as identified to be Alprazolam by the medicine control officer, Mr. Prem Singh.
13. This Court also observes that the learned Court below has rightly found that the prosecution was able to prove that the appellant herein was found to be in possession of the tablets in question, so recovered from him, which were in his possession, which he either bought or sought to sell without any license or authority or permit for the same, and after a thorough perusal of the evidences on the record, specifically the testimonies of witnesses P.W. 7 Vijay Anand, P.W. 8 Nayab Singh, P.W. 9 Rajesh Kumar, P.W. 10 Man Singh, P.W. 12 Ramkumar and P.W. 13 Sohan Lal, found it to be an offence under the Act of 1985. The prosecution was therefore able to establish the facts as averred by them, through evidences placed on record, medical evidence coupled with witness testimony and compliance with the (Downloaded on 04/08/2022 at 08:17:46 PM) (6 of 6) [CRLAS-1387/2018] requisite processes as enumerated under the Act of 1985 and therefore, the case of the prosecution case was proven beyond all reasonable doubt.
14. This Court further observes that the contention made on behalf of the appellant that the recovery made from the appellant does not fall within the ambit of the Act of 1985, is without substance, and the case law cited in support of the same does not render any assistance to the case of the appellant.
15. This Court finds that the learned Court below has rightly convicted the appellant herein for the offences under Section 8(c) read with Section 22(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 and therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction deserves to affirmed and upheld.
16. This Court, in light of the above made observations, affirms and upholds the impugned order of conviction.
17. Resultantly, the appeal fails, and is hereby, dismissed. The accused-appellant is already in judicial custody, since his arrest on 28.10.2016 (as revealed from the custody certificate on record), and thus, no consequential order regarding taking him into custody and sending him to jail needs to be passed. All pending applications are disposed of. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
7-SKant/-
(Downloaded on 04/08/2022 at 08:17:46 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)