Single Baum IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH CRxMINAL APPEAL No. r50 2006 APPELLANT : Chhoti Munni @ Nisha IN JAIL W/o Shailesh Rao, Aged about 3O years, Occupation House Wife, ’& R/ 0 Ahamad Nagar, CampJI, , Bhilai, P.S. Chhaoni, District Durg C.G. VERSUS The State of Chhattisgarh Through : RS. Chhawani, Distt. Durg (C.G.) ' “f . MAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 3’74 12} OF THE CODE OF é‘ «"f ’ v cmMINAL PROCEDURE ‘ AW HIQH £GURT €33: €HHATTI$5ARH AT gitAanUR Ci Appea! NG.éO/'EGGE: Single Bansh: Hon'ble Shri Dmp gaasaheb Deshmukh, J. Chhofi Mumi {2? Misha Versus Tha 5mm 0f Chha‘H’isgarh 5hri R. KJain, Counsel for The appellant Shri Sushi} Dubey’, éever-nmem Advscafe far The S’ra’re. WD§W§NT (Delivered on this 04*” dtxy 6f May 2006) This appeai is ciirec‘iea! agains‘i’ ihe Judgmen‘i dm‘eci 19m Czecember' 30G5 deiiverw by Shri A. R. Dhruv, Speciai Judge, NDPSAaf, Durg in Speciui Case No. Glf'ZGGB whereby *ihe apeeiiam‘ was camic’red unaiew SecHan 8 (c) read wh‘h Sec’rion 2G (b}(ii){%} af i’he Naaecoiic Wags and Psychcir'epic Subsiunces Aim 1985 (hereinaf'ier r’efeiar'ed ’ro as “we Acf'} and was eewienced ’ro uneer‘gc rigamue imprisor‘imenf fa? {our years and a fine 0f Rs.10,0001’- amd ik’i defauH' “i0 um‘ergo cdéi‘i'ionai RI. for six ma’mhs‘ 3. - griefiy s’ra‘i‘eé ‘ihe presecu'iion sfnr‘y' is Hm? Sub—Engpeciar KKNag FAA/.8 6f i’aiice Sia‘t’ien Chhatmi upw receivirig secret informai’ian 'i'hu’r w‘he appeilm‘? is in passessian cf gmja a? he? hause, vecardeé ihe secret? inferma’iion so receiveii and affer' im‘wmirig we serum” 'pciice efficiais proceeded 'i'a fhe hause cf we agpeiiem‘ qiaag wiih siuff andwi‘messes Qajjak Khaa P.W.1 aid Sawf§ezia Khaki ?.W.6. Afier' recarding reesans for nc’r ob‘hirde'ig a search warvam‘, Sub—Inspec‘tc.“ K.K.Nag searched ‘fhe hause 0f 'i'he apipeHan'i' and saw +ha‘f in one rsom bdcw The co'l' one packe’r was kep? m which ganja Eike subs’rance was faund. Waighmem' cf i’he seized subsfcmce was dame by Ekna‘fh P.W.3 and ifwas feund m canfam 8.350 gms. af ganja Ou'l' 8f fhe afar'ewid subgfance, 3 sampies af 5O grams each were faken and wea’e gamed. Th2 packa‘!’ was also sealed. A specimen impvess£gn of sea! was affixed an fhe seizure meme Ex.P.3. The seized subsfonce was handed ever h) Head Cans‘mbie Manhamnla! P.W.? fer safe eus‘redy a? me Maikhsm. On 3.12.2005 vide meme Ex.P.15 fwo peckws of 50 grams each were sea? far‘ chemica! ana‘ysis ”(a The ESL. Vide repaef Ex.P.2?, fhe Farensic Scieuce Labar‘aa‘ary apined ‘H’ta‘t bofh fhe packe’rs canfained ganja. Affer' cample‘fion 0f iavest’igai'ian, The appeHan'f was prasecu‘ted under SecTian 2Q (b) read wifh Secfian 8 (c} 6f we Act 3. The appe!!an‘% abjured fhe gum and pleaded innacence. The presecu‘t'ian examined as many as eigi‘n‘ wi’messes. Reiyirtg upaa ”(he saie iesi‘imoey 0f Sub—Emspeci’ar‘ KK. Nag P.W.8 and The repor‘i af F.S.L. Ex.P.27, ihe ieamed friai Judge convicied and sen’renced i‘he appeiiani' as afaresaid ia paragraph 1 (supra). 4. Shri §.K.3ain, ieamed counsei for 'i'he appeilaai has assaiied “Hie carivic‘rian of The appeiiani' an ‘ihe gvound fha‘i independea’r wi’rnesses Rajjak Khan P.W.1 and Srm‘. Razia Khan P~W.6 did mi suppari ”she pr‘aseeuiiaa s‘i’ary. I‘‘. was aisa argued Thai ‘ihe pmsecui'ian has faiied ’i’o pr'ave fhai' i'he ganja was seized fram 'ihe conscious passession af The appeiiani’. There was “tom! hen—campiiance 0f Sec’tioh 55 of ihe Ac? sihce ihe seized subsiance befar'e being enirusied for safe cus‘iady a? fhe -‘3y— fdaJkKwm was rm? seaied by ”rhe Officer—in-Charge 0f x‘hz cancemati Pa§ice S‘m’rian. The memo {3f Swer’in’fandewf af PcRca Ex.P.15 did naf manfion ‘i’he name af Consfab§e fhr‘wgh Wham “the fwa sampws were sen? fat“ anaiysis m “H18 F.S.L. The repcrf {if we F.S.L. mveaQw "fhad' "fhe sampias wera recewad an 4.32.2604. Na specimga imprassiw 6f 'fhe sea! used "m saaE fhe gamples was sew? fa fha F‘SL. Themfcr'e, ‘fhe pgssibii§fy '%hm‘ ”(he samwe sew? far maiysis “ha we F.S.L. was “rampef'ed with csuid no't be vukfi auf. O§1 1‘hege gmurids, 8hr§ Jain, {earneci counse! far We appeilam’r prayed "rhaf we canvicx‘icn and sen-fame awarded by Tha Wig! judge daewe Ta be 32% witig. Ga fhe oi'her hand, teamed camase§ wpewing fa? ‘i‘he Sm‘fe argued in suppar‘t' Gf 'fhe ém pugma' judgmert’t. 5. Havimg considared fhe rivcd suhmissicns, I have pamseci fhe recar'd. In a case cf fhe presem‘ nafure, if is “rhe dufy of “(he pmsecu‘f'ian fa esfabhsh beymd doub‘i’ 'fha'f fhe gal/3J6 W65 gaized fmm Thxtz cmscéous aeasession of fha appellant Sub—Enspeci’or KK. Nag has, in para 20 af his TeS’Hmarxy, g’ta?eé %hm‘ when hé reached ’rha hcuse af ’rhe appeHan‘i’, i’r wag iccked. He did mf mem‘ian Thaf Jrhe Eack was apened by ‘Hxe appeilam‘. Tha abave fac’t was aissa m1 menfioned by Sub-Insiaecwr K.K.Nag ia *rhe FIR. Ex.P.24. Independen‘f wifnesses Rajjak Khan P.W.1 and ,Sm‘t. Razm Khcm P.W.6 &lse did m? supper”: fhe prosecu‘rian s’mry and s’rated “ma? ‘fheir’ signai'ur‘es were cbfained by ‘H‘le paiice on aH ’rhe dacumem‘s a? ane fime. I? is ‘ per‘firtam $0 mfe fhaf sisw ma? pwpared by Pafwar§ 8.5.Meshmm P.W.2 VEée Ex.P.éO ab ZOIZEGQA dses my? bear fbe signai’ureb 6f any wimesses. Pafwwé B.-.’.'.Meshmm admif'md in immgmph 2 0f his 1‘as1‘im0ny ihaf he signed as wi‘mess Rajjak Khan simé desph‘e baing caHed ‘H‘te wimess d§d m’r came. This wi’mess has furfher' admm‘ad in paragraph 3 *ha‘? he {iid m? ewe? fhz hoase m‘ we appauan'k Tha mamer in whieh fhe spa? map was prepared creafes a doub’f in we presecufim sfer'y. gab-Inspec'mr‘ KKNag P.W.8 has admh‘wd in paragraph 12 ’rha‘f ‘H‘tg app-akin? {Ned in ’rhe hauge along wifh her famiiy members. If is m? ghowri whe%%1s§“ fhe husband or chiidr‘en sf “fha appaiiam wera presen‘r a? 'i‘he houge cm mi I? is also per-tinem *ra mfg “ma? ’{he gaizur‘a mama Ex.?.8 does m"? mem'ian Etha’r 'Hne ganja §ik€ subs’rcnca was seized fram “We hwsa 0f We appeibm’. If wily dascvibes‘ we p!ac2 cf seizure as Ahmed Nagar' £amfJ, Near ?tmdu Kimm Shap. This creafes a seriaus dam in ‘i'he pmsesui’im‘i siery mé fur‘iher Péi‘idera daubi’fui ihai’ garija like subei‘ance was seized from ’rhe camsciaus passession {if ihe appeiiam. 6. l'i’ is mfewari’hy fhaf aimas“? in each and every documem peepared by Sub-Irispeei'ae K.K.Nag' P.W.8 specific i'ime ims heee men’ricvied. However, ‘l'he weighmewi emchmma Ex.12 arid ihe sampie paecheame Ex.P.13 eeiiher' beers The iime mi" ihe sigm‘i'ur’e a? am wi‘mess. ii is mi dispui'ed iha‘i iii! prepar‘u‘ficn sf ihese decumeni‘e i‘he seized subs’rance was m? seaied. The presecui‘ien sior‘y "the? ih presence ef 'i'he appeiicm’r fhh‘ee samplee a‘f 5O gmms eaeh were when on? frem The game seized frcm her hsuse and were sesied is i'hus rendered exiremeiy deubfful. Na recscm is feriheamihg as is why ihe signaiure {if ihe appeileni er ihe wiihesses were rioi iakeh on ihese iwo Viiai dacumenis. ' ‘f. Undar Secficm 55 af The Ac? 0f 2000, if is *fhe dufy 0¥ fhe Officer—in-Charge taf “the concerned PoHce S‘tafian 'l'e affix H3 seal on fhe sampies being enfmsfed for safe cusi'ady a? Mafk!mna as a measure f0 preven‘t‘ famper'ing wifh 'fha samples. In ’{he wesem case, if Es noi‘ dispufed fha’r a separafe specimen impr’assian 0f W‘hé sea! was no? prepared and was naf enfrusfed Ta Head Cansmbie Manhamniat RWY oiong wi‘th sampies and a‘ha bag canmining 8.350 grams ganja a? fhe Pohce Sfafian. Head Cansmbie AMnhamnla! P.W.7 has in pamgmph 4 clearly admi'l'l'ad lhal‘ Sub~Inspeclor K.K.Nag did nm‘ pu’r any idanlifica‘l'ion mark an ‘l'l'le samples in his presance. The seizure memo EXPB shaws 'i‘l‘la‘i ene packei caniaining 8.200 grams 0f gary'a and Three gample packeis caniaining 5O grams a’f ganja were seized. The same demilsare else recarded in the Msfkssns regisier Ex.P.18. Ii is, however, periinen’r i0 nei’e ’rha'i Ehnu‘ih P.W.3 whs haii weighed The submance alleged i0 have been seized frsm The hcuse of ‘ihe eppellen‘l has categorically s‘iaiecl in pam~1 iha‘l ef‘ier weighmen‘i fhe seized subsiance was aboui 12 — 13 Kgs. This wi'i'ness was mi crass—examined by i'he prosecuiien and else was nei’ cleclarecl hosiile. He has else s’m‘ied ca‘iegoricelly in 'pamgralph 4 *ihe’i afieh weighmeni cf ihe substance ’{he pelice had mi affixeci any seal fheheupcn and, had merely iekeri his signaiures. The iesiimony ef Ekna‘ih P.WV3 renders 'l‘he presecuiicn siery :lcub‘lful since ihere is a msieriul variance in ”(he quan’ril’y alleged ‘ie have been seized frsm ’rhe hause m” ‘ihe appellant anti lhe quanlil’y weighed by Eknaih P.W.3. 8‘ The meme 9f Superini'endeniLof Pelice Ex.P.15 does na'l shew The heme ei‘ ihe Cansiable 'lo Wham 'ihe samples were emrusi'ed ftw baimg fakan ’m ‘rhe 93%.. 11* aisti dues m‘f Show Jihad a s‘pecimw impressian 6f ma said was separa‘rely sea? 1’0' fhé F.S.L. A perusa! of 'x‘he specimen imwessian af ‘fhe sea! affixed an seiiur'a mama Ex.P.8 shaws Tha’r if bears fhe {effers "KRBS.C.;’G.E.C.I’M?8". li‘ is m? dear ”(had whefher‘ a‘his was an ’ affidal $eai 3r some privm‘e sank usad by Sub—Impede!" " KKSii'tgh. The repar‘f 6f ESL. Ex.P.2? ghows "Hm? The samples \ / were reseivzd a? Raipur an 4.12.2904 Thraugh {me Cans+ab!e Rwii’ Mavkam P.W.5 bu‘? ‘rhe mama 6f Super‘infendei’if 0f PaHce is £1u'i’ed 3.12.2004. Head (Israsmbie Rchii’ Markam P.W.5 has sfcded Wat? ha had recsaved sampies on 4.12.2004. A cow cf ’{he it€alksans mgis’rer‘ Ex.P.18 proved by we presecu?ian aiso {i063 m? Shaw an wha‘i’ dam and a? wka’r ‘Hme fhe samsie was fakzn eu’r fvam ihe Ma‘lkhana and was handed aver 1's him. In View cf we fac?s and circums‘fances menfioned shave, the eassibihfy ’We‘t’ fhe sempies sen? for analysis “m 'i'he F.S.L. mutd have been Jmmper‘ed wifh camof be rmed am. 8. Having ’rhus cansiéered fhe evidence led by ll‘le wesecuflel‘x in ifs emire‘iy, The fallswii'ig fuels emerge: i. Issependem wilnesses Rajjak Khan P.W.1 and Smi. Razia Khan P.W.6 did mi supper? ‘l'lie pmsecu’rien slaw. ii. There was maier'ial variance iri ‘llie quasiily sf gasjs" alleged fa have been seized from ihe house sf ihe appellas‘i and ‘ihe quan‘iiiy weigl'aed by Ekna‘ll’i l3.W.3. The 'ies’iimany‘ of Ekna‘ll'i ?.W.3 revealed ihai‘ afier / weighmeni, iiie subsiance was na'l’ sealed. /// /// // iii. There £2: ‘x‘w‘mi man—campiicmce 01‘ Section 55 of fhe Ac? since The Smficn House Officer did m? affix his send upon ?he scrapies and ’(he packe’r cantaining {ways enfrusi'ed for safe cusi’ody oi ”(he Moikhsns. iv. The avidence led by The prasecm‘ian does n0? es‘fabiish beyand dcubf %haf we ganja was seized fmm 'tha camcicus passession of fhe appeUan‘t. v. Non—men’iion of ihe foe'i ihcd ‘i'he oanja was seized fmm fhe house of fhe appellant in seizure memo Ex.P.8 eiso renders ihe prosecution sior'y doubi‘fui. vi. The possibitify Hm fhe subsmnce examioed by fhe F.$.L. could have been hampered wiih couid not be r‘ded ouf‘. In View of ”the obovel E om of fho considered opinion fhaf “the conviction and senience awarded by the learned ‘rr‘ioi Judge éesewe 'io be se‘i aside. 19. In The hesuh‘ ihis appeoi is ai!owed. Conviciion of ihe oppeilon‘f under Seciioh 20(b)(ii)(B) head wiih Sec‘fion 8 (c) of ihe Ad ohd ihe senfehce awarded iheheundeh are sef aside. The appeiiom‘ is ocquif'ied and shah be sei of iiber'iy for'i'hwi'fh, if mi Pequihed ih any oiheh case. Fi’ne, if paid, shaii be refunded To ihe oppeikm'i. i 7 i Sdl- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge G4.05.ZG06