Full Judgment Text
1 910.apeal1367.12.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1367 OF 2012
Jude Okonkwo Chukwuemeka.
Nigerian National, Christian aged 42 years.
R/o SW 7/60 B, Fagbohun Road,
O/CE/Kapdi, Oyo Oyo State,
Nigeria.
(At present in Thane Central Prison.) ..Appellant.
V/s.
1. Union of India
(Through NCB, Mumbai)
rd
3 floor Exchange Building,
Ballard Pier, Mumbai.
2. The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondents.
Ms. Shradha Sawant, advocate appointed for appellant.
Ms. Ankeeta Appanna I/b. Ms. Yasmin N. Katpitia, advocate for respondent
No. 1.
Mr. S.S. Pednekar, APP for State.
CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV,J.
DATE : DECEMBER 19, 2018.
JUDGMENT :
1 The appellant herein is convicted for an offence punishable
under section 8(C) read with Section 21(C) of N.D.P.S. Act and is
sentenced to suffer R.I. for the period of 11 years and to pay fine of Rs.
Talwalkar
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:43:09 :::
2 910.apeal1367.12.doc
One Lakh I.d. to suffer S.I. for one year. Hence, this appeal.
2 Such of the facts necessary for the decision of this Appeal are
as follows :
(i) The complainant in this Case is Narcotic Control Bureau
(hereinafter referred to as N.C.B.) Mumbai. It is the case of the N.C.B.
nd
that on 2 September, 2007 in the vicinity of Khaniwade Tollnaka
National Highway No. 8, Virar, appellant in conspiracy with other accused
was found in possession of 2 kg. of heroin.
(ii) It is the case of N.C.B. that on 1/11/2007 Canute Menezes P.W.
1 was attached to N.C.B.. He had received secret information at about
5.30 p.m. to the effect that one African national namely, Jude aged about
42 to 45 years is travelling in luxury bus No. RJ-27/PA-937 of Eagle Travels
from Udaypur to Mumbai and he is carrying substantial quantity of
heroin in his shoulder bag.
(iii) There was also information that the bus would reach Virar
tollnaka at about 6.30 a.m.. The officers i.e. P.W. 1 and Ashish
Mangaonkar reduced the information into writing and the same was
placed before Shri Mahar, Zonal Director. They decided to intercept the
said luxary bus.
Talwalkar
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:43:09 :::
3 910.apeal1367.12.doc
(iv) They had followed initial procedure. They apprehended the
bus. They had taken panchas alongwith them. They had recovered
contraband from the appellant. The accused had disclosed his name as
Jude Okonkwo Chukwuemeka. He was carrying grey colour shoulder bag.
The said shoulder bag was seized. The said contraband was tested with
field testing kit. The test was positive for the presence of heroin. They
had sealed the same.
(v) He was taken to the police station and after following due
procedure of law, the FIR was filed on behalf of the State. The report of
arrest is at Exh. 43. At the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 8
witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused.
3 P.W.1 Canute Menezes was attached to N.C.B. Mumbai as an
Intelligence Officer. He has deposed before the Court in respect of
receiving the secret information, reducing it into writing and informing it
to the Zonal Director Shri Mahar, as contemplated under section 42 of
the N.D.P. S. Act.
4 P.W.2 Shri Shrinivasrao is the carrier of the contraband to the
office of C.FSI, Hyderabad.
Talwalkar
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:43:09 :::
4 910.apeal1367.12.doc
5 P.W. 3 Kishore Hate was working as an intelligence Officer with
the N.C.B. He had received direction from Zonal Director Shri Mahar to
carry out the investigation. He has deposed before the Court that he has
complied with the rules of the investigation as contemplated under the
provisions of N.D.P.S. Act. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that
he has not filed any document to show that he was in the office on the
earlier night and he has not disclosed any reason for remaining in the
office late at night. He has denied the suggestion that an African national
was present in the office of N.C.B. on 1.9.2007 and he did not recollect as
to whether 2 kg. Of heroin was seized from him on 1/9/2007. The office
does not maintain any register of visitors. No entry is made for bringing
the accused in N.C.B. office. There is no record to indicate as to who
had brought the accused in the office of N.C.B. and at what time. It is
admitted that except document at Exh. P-10, there is no document to
show that Mr. Canute and Mr. Mangaonkar were present in the office on
1/9/2007. No information was received by them in his presence. It is
admitted that they had not disclosed as to whether the secret
information was a telephonic information, whether it was received on
landline or cell phone or any other mode and manner. It is also
admitted that since this could be an important factor, there is always an
entry in the register as to whether the information is received
Talwalkar
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:43:09 :::
5 910.apeal1367.12.doc
telephonically or not. P.W. 3 has filed a complaint. There is no
document to show that N.C.B. -I form was sent to the Head Quarter. It is
also admitted that the registration number of the bus given in the
information note differs from bus number in bus ticket at Exh. 37.
According to him, he has prepared the complaint after collecting all
necessary documents from various officers connected with the case. The
ticket was issued by sub-agent of Rajdhani travels. On the basis of the
list of passengers submitted by the traveller of Eagle Travels, it is seen
that Jude was travelling in the said bus. However, the said chart was
neither seized or produced on record. It is also admitted that there is no
enquiry by P.W. 3 with the driver and cleaner in respect of bus number.
From the tenure of the cross-examination and the admissions given by
the witness, it appears that there was non-compliance of keeping the
documentary evidence in place i.e. of maintaining N.C.B. Form II and
N.C.B. Form No. III. It is admitted that the bag was opened for the first
time in the official vehicle. The statement of the accused was not
recorded under section 67 of N.D.P.S. Act before writing the
memorandum of panchanama. It is also admitted that P.W. 3 had not
even conducted a preliminary enquiry as to whether a gazetted officer or
Magistrate would be available in the vicinity of the spot. It was not aware
as to whether the accused would accept offer under section 50 of the
N.D.P.S. Act. The statement of the co-passengers were not recorded. At
Talwalkar
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:43:09 :::
6 910.apeal1367.12.doc
this stage, the learned Counsel for the appellant submits that there is
non-compliance of the provisions under section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act. It
is also admitted that the documents at Exh. 41 does not reflect that there
was compliance of section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act. It is admitted that
there was no enquiry about the bag which was handed over to P.W. 3 by
the accused and the officer did not feel necessity of obtaining the
signature of co-passengers. There was no enquiry with the driver and
the conductor about the time/place when the accused boarded the bus.
The investigating officer did not feel necessity of recording statement of
the accused under section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act. In short, the
Investigating Officer has admitted that he had not taken certain requisite
steps mandated in the course of investigation. In fact, Exh. 41 is the
statement of accused/appellant recorded under section 67 of the N.D.P.S.
Act.
6 P.W. 4 Shrikant Phansekar was posted as Investigating Officer
st
in NCB, Mumbai. On 1 September, 2007 at around 6.15 p.m. Mr. Hate
had informed them that he has been directed to take steps in respect of
the secret information received by him and hence, all of them had set
out to work on the secret information. Upon entering the bus, they had
found an African national with a military green colour shoulder bag on
his lap. Upon enquiry, he had disclosed that he was carrying 2 kg.
Talwalkar
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:43:09 :::
7 910.apeal1367.12.doc
Heroin. Mr. Hate had informed the said person about this right under
section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act. They had carried out the investigation as
per the Manual. It is admitted by P.W. 4 in the cross-examination that
there is no reference to the steps taken by him in the course of
investigation. It is admitted that Manohar Bhoir had voluntarily attended
the office of NCB. Needless to reiterate that Manohar Bhoir has acted as
panch in the present case.
7 P.W. 5 Shri Sanjay Poojari was posted as an Enforcement
Officer in Enforcement Department. He was a member of the
investigating team. He has also admitted before the Court that they have
all followed the due procedure of law in conducting the investigation. He
was the custodian of the NCB godown and had given seal No. 03 to
Investigating Officer Hate. It is admitted that he had not tried to tally the
name of the accused with the name in the photo copy of the passport.
That the document at D-2 is not the passport of the appellant. He has
denied the suggestion that the accused was apprehended from his
residence at Mira Road. It is also admitted that on Exh. 39, there is no
reference to sealing the samples with NCB seal No. 03 in the forwarding
letter.
8 According to P.W. 6 Seema Shrivastav who was attached to
Talwalkar
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:43:09 :::
8 910.apeal1367.12.doc
C.FSL, Hyderabad, Head of Department, Chemistry, the sample contains
granule substance and not granule powder. Upon examination, the
substance was found to be the contraband, which showed the presence
of caffeine, dizapan and heroin.
9 P.W. 7 Manohar Bhoir has acted as a panch. He was working
at Khanewade Toll Naka as supervisor. The other panch Suraj was also
working at Khanewade Toll Naka. The witness has resiled from his earlier
statement and therefore, was cross-examined by the Special P.P. and was
declared hostile.
10 P.W.8 Velji Patel was the driver on the bus of Neeta Travels in
which the accused was apprehended alongwith contraband. It is
admitted in the cross-examination that the ticket at Exh. 37 does not
show that the said ticket is issued for the passenger of Egle travels. That
Egle travels has one or two buses plying between Udaypur and Mumbai.
It is not his job to see ticket but to see driver's slip. The signature on the
driver's slip at Exh. 57 collectively are inherently inconsistent with each
other. However, the witness has admited his signature on both the
documents. It appears from the tenore of the cross-examination that the
accused has challenged the fact that Velji Patel was the driver of the bus
in which the accused was allegedly travelling and was apprehended
Talwalkar
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:43:09 :::
9 910.apeal1367.12.doc
alongwith heroin.
11 The learned Counsel has submitted that upon perusal of the
admissions given by the officers of the NCB in the cross-examination, it is
more than clear that a false case has been foisted upon the accused and
that he was falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that
there has been non-compliance of section 15 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The said
contention will not hold good ground. In view of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Himachal Pradesh v/s. Pawan Kumar
reported in 2005 Cr. L.J. 2208, wherein the Court has held as follows :
A bag, briefcase or any such article or container, etc. can,
under no circumstances, be treated as body of a human
being. They are given a separate name and are identifiable as
such. They cannot even remotely be treated to be part of the
body of a human being. …... Therefore, it is not possible to
include these articles within the ambit of the word "person"
occurring in Section 50 of the Act.
12 The learned Special Court has also held that there is proper
compliance of section 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act. It is also held that the
statement of the accused was recorded under section 67 of the
N.D.P.S.Act and that he has admitted his guilt and the said document is
admissible in evidence. Although it is argued that the confession was
subsequently retracted, there is nothing on record to even remotely
suggest that the said statement was retracted. In fact, it appears from
Talwalkar
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:43:09 :::
10 910.apeal1367.12.doc
the record that the statement was shown to have been retracted only by
way of cross-examination.
13 The learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance
upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shantilal vs. State
of M.P. reported in (2014) Insc 1014.
“ The learned counsel for the State again is right in submitting that
clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 30, CrPC authorizes the
Court to award imprisonment in default of payment of fine up to
one-fourth term of imprisonment which the Court is competent to
inflict as punishment for the offence. But considering the
circumstances placed before us on behalf of the appellant-accused
that he is very poor; he is merely a carrier; he has to maintain his
family; it was his first offence; because of his poverty, he could not
pay the heavy amount of fine (rupees one lakh) and if he is ordered
to remain in jail even after the period of substantive sentence is
over only because of his inability to pay fine, serious prejudice will
be caused not only to him, but also to his family members who are
innocent. We are, therefore, of the view that though an amount of
payment of fine of rupees one lakh which is minimum as specified
in Section 18 of the Act cannot be reduced in view of the legislative
mandate, ends of justice would be met if we retain that part of the
direction, but order that in default of payment of fine of rupees one
lakh, the appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for six
months instead of three years as ordered by the trial court and
confirmed by the High Court.”
14 In view of the above discussion, the findings recorded by the
Special Judge call for no interference. The appellant is in custody since
2/9/2007. He has undergone substantive sentence of 11 years. In view
of this, the substantive sentence is upheld.
15 Hence, following order is passed :
Talwalkar
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:43:09 :::
11 910.apeal1367.12.doc
ORDER
(I) The appeal is partly allowed.
(II) The conviction of the appellant i.e. 11 years rigourous
imprisonment for the offence punishable under sections 8(C) read with
Section 21(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act
(N.D.P.S. Act) imposed by the learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S., Thane vide
th
Judgment and Order dated 30 October, 2012 is hereby confirmed.
(III) The sentence of fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- imposed upon the
appellant is maintained. However, the default sentence that is for non-
payment of fine amount is reduced to three months, instead of one year.
(IV) Writ be issued expeditiously.
(V) The professional fees to be paid to the Advocate appointed
Ms. Shraddha Sawant as per rule.
16 The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
[SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.]
Talwalkar
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:43:09 :::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1367 OF 2012
Jude Okonkwo Chukwuemeka.
Nigerian National, Christian aged 42 years.
R/o SW 7/60 B, Fagbohun Road,
O/CE/Kapdi, Oyo Oyo State,
Nigeria.
(At present in Thane Central Prison.) ..Appellant.
V/s.
1. Union of India
(Through NCB, Mumbai)
rd
3 floor Exchange Building,
Ballard Pier, Mumbai.
2. The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondents.
Ms. Shradha Sawant, advocate appointed for appellant.
Ms. Ankeeta Appanna I/b. Ms. Yasmin N. Katpitia, advocate for respondent
No. 1.
Mr. S.S. Pednekar, APP for State.
CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV,J.
DATE : DECEMBER 19, 2018.
JUDGMENT :
1 The appellant herein is convicted for an offence punishable
under section 8(C) read with Section 21(C) of N.D.P.S. Act and is
sentenced to suffer R.I. for the period of 11 years and to pay fine of Rs.
Talwalkar
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:43:09 :::
2 910.apeal1367.12.doc
One Lakh I.d. to suffer S.I. for one year. Hence, this appeal.
2 Such of the facts necessary for the decision of this Appeal are
as follows :
(i) The complainant in this Case is Narcotic Control Bureau
(hereinafter referred to as N.C.B.) Mumbai. It is the case of the N.C.B.
nd
that on 2 September, 2007 in the vicinity of Khaniwade Tollnaka
National Highway No. 8, Virar, appellant in conspiracy with other accused
was found in possession of 2 kg. of heroin.
(ii) It is the case of N.C.B. that on 1/11/2007 Canute Menezes P.W.
1 was attached to N.C.B.. He had received secret information at about
5.30 p.m. to the effect that one African national namely, Jude aged about
42 to 45 years is travelling in luxury bus No. RJ-27/PA-937 of Eagle Travels
from Udaypur to Mumbai and he is carrying substantial quantity of
heroin in his shoulder bag.
(iii) There was also information that the bus would reach Virar
tollnaka at about 6.30 a.m.. The officers i.e. P.W. 1 and Ashish
Mangaonkar reduced the information into writing and the same was
placed before Shri Mahar, Zonal Director. They decided to intercept the
said luxary bus.
Talwalkar
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:43:09 :::
3 910.apeal1367.12.doc
(iv) They had followed initial procedure. They apprehended the
bus. They had taken panchas alongwith them. They had recovered
contraband from the appellant. The accused had disclosed his name as
Jude Okonkwo Chukwuemeka. He was carrying grey colour shoulder bag.
The said shoulder bag was seized. The said contraband was tested with
field testing kit. The test was positive for the presence of heroin. They
had sealed the same.
(v) He was taken to the police station and after following due
procedure of law, the FIR was filed on behalf of the State. The report of
arrest is at Exh. 43. At the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 8
witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused.
3 P.W.1 Canute Menezes was attached to N.C.B. Mumbai as an
Intelligence Officer. He has deposed before the Court in respect of
receiving the secret information, reducing it into writing and informing it
to the Zonal Director Shri Mahar, as contemplated under section 42 of
the N.D.P. S. Act.
4 P.W.2 Shri Shrinivasrao is the carrier of the contraband to the
office of C.FSI, Hyderabad.
Talwalkar
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:43:09 :::
4 910.apeal1367.12.doc
5 P.W. 3 Kishore Hate was working as an intelligence Officer with
the N.C.B. He had received direction from Zonal Director Shri Mahar to
carry out the investigation. He has deposed before the Court that he has
complied with the rules of the investigation as contemplated under the
provisions of N.D.P.S. Act. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that
he has not filed any document to show that he was in the office on the
earlier night and he has not disclosed any reason for remaining in the
office late at night. He has denied the suggestion that an African national
was present in the office of N.C.B. on 1.9.2007 and he did not recollect as
to whether 2 kg. Of heroin was seized from him on 1/9/2007. The office
does not maintain any register of visitors. No entry is made for bringing
the accused in N.C.B. office. There is no record to indicate as to who
had brought the accused in the office of N.C.B. and at what time. It is
admitted that except document at Exh. P-10, there is no document to
show that Mr. Canute and Mr. Mangaonkar were present in the office on
1/9/2007. No information was received by them in his presence. It is
admitted that they had not disclosed as to whether the secret
information was a telephonic information, whether it was received on
landline or cell phone or any other mode and manner. It is also
admitted that since this could be an important factor, there is always an
entry in the register as to whether the information is received
Talwalkar
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:43:09 :::
5 910.apeal1367.12.doc
telephonically or not. P.W. 3 has filed a complaint. There is no
document to show that N.C.B. -I form was sent to the Head Quarter. It is
also admitted that the registration number of the bus given in the
information note differs from bus number in bus ticket at Exh. 37.
According to him, he has prepared the complaint after collecting all
necessary documents from various officers connected with the case. The
ticket was issued by sub-agent of Rajdhani travels. On the basis of the
list of passengers submitted by the traveller of Eagle Travels, it is seen
that Jude was travelling in the said bus. However, the said chart was
neither seized or produced on record. It is also admitted that there is no
enquiry by P.W. 3 with the driver and cleaner in respect of bus number.
From the tenure of the cross-examination and the admissions given by
the witness, it appears that there was non-compliance of keeping the
documentary evidence in place i.e. of maintaining N.C.B. Form II and
N.C.B. Form No. III. It is admitted that the bag was opened for the first
time in the official vehicle. The statement of the accused was not
recorded under section 67 of N.D.P.S. Act before writing the
memorandum of panchanama. It is also admitted that P.W. 3 had not
even conducted a preliminary enquiry as to whether a gazetted officer or
Magistrate would be available in the vicinity of the spot. It was not aware
as to whether the accused would accept offer under section 50 of the
N.D.P.S. Act. The statement of the co-passengers were not recorded. At
Talwalkar
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:43:09 :::
6 910.apeal1367.12.doc
this stage, the learned Counsel for the appellant submits that there is
non-compliance of the provisions under section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act. It
is also admitted that the documents at Exh. 41 does not reflect that there
was compliance of section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act. It is admitted that
there was no enquiry about the bag which was handed over to P.W. 3 by
the accused and the officer did not feel necessity of obtaining the
signature of co-passengers. There was no enquiry with the driver and
the conductor about the time/place when the accused boarded the bus.
The investigating officer did not feel necessity of recording statement of
the accused under section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act. In short, the
Investigating Officer has admitted that he had not taken certain requisite
steps mandated in the course of investigation. In fact, Exh. 41 is the
statement of accused/appellant recorded under section 67 of the N.D.P.S.
Act.
6 P.W. 4 Shrikant Phansekar was posted as Investigating Officer
st
in NCB, Mumbai. On 1 September, 2007 at around 6.15 p.m. Mr. Hate
had informed them that he has been directed to take steps in respect of
the secret information received by him and hence, all of them had set
out to work on the secret information. Upon entering the bus, they had
found an African national with a military green colour shoulder bag on
his lap. Upon enquiry, he had disclosed that he was carrying 2 kg.
Talwalkar
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:43:09 :::
7 910.apeal1367.12.doc
Heroin. Mr. Hate had informed the said person about this right under
section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act. They had carried out the investigation as
per the Manual. It is admitted by P.W. 4 in the cross-examination that
there is no reference to the steps taken by him in the course of
investigation. It is admitted that Manohar Bhoir had voluntarily attended
the office of NCB. Needless to reiterate that Manohar Bhoir has acted as
panch in the present case.
7 P.W. 5 Shri Sanjay Poojari was posted as an Enforcement
Officer in Enforcement Department. He was a member of the
investigating team. He has also admitted before the Court that they have
all followed the due procedure of law in conducting the investigation. He
was the custodian of the NCB godown and had given seal No. 03 to
Investigating Officer Hate. It is admitted that he had not tried to tally the
name of the accused with the name in the photo copy of the passport.
That the document at D-2 is not the passport of the appellant. He has
denied the suggestion that the accused was apprehended from his
residence at Mira Road. It is also admitted that on Exh. 39, there is no
reference to sealing the samples with NCB seal No. 03 in the forwarding
letter.
8 According to P.W. 6 Seema Shrivastav who was attached to
Talwalkar
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:43:09 :::
8 910.apeal1367.12.doc
C.FSL, Hyderabad, Head of Department, Chemistry, the sample contains
granule substance and not granule powder. Upon examination, the
substance was found to be the contraband, which showed the presence
of caffeine, dizapan and heroin.
9 P.W. 7 Manohar Bhoir has acted as a panch. He was working
at Khanewade Toll Naka as supervisor. The other panch Suraj was also
working at Khanewade Toll Naka. The witness has resiled from his earlier
statement and therefore, was cross-examined by the Special P.P. and was
declared hostile.
10 P.W.8 Velji Patel was the driver on the bus of Neeta Travels in
which the accused was apprehended alongwith contraband. It is
admitted in the cross-examination that the ticket at Exh. 37 does not
show that the said ticket is issued for the passenger of Egle travels. That
Egle travels has one or two buses plying between Udaypur and Mumbai.
It is not his job to see ticket but to see driver's slip. The signature on the
driver's slip at Exh. 57 collectively are inherently inconsistent with each
other. However, the witness has admited his signature on both the
documents. It appears from the tenore of the cross-examination that the
accused has challenged the fact that Velji Patel was the driver of the bus
in which the accused was allegedly travelling and was apprehended
Talwalkar
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:43:09 :::
9 910.apeal1367.12.doc
alongwith heroin.
11 The learned Counsel has submitted that upon perusal of the
admissions given by the officers of the NCB in the cross-examination, it is
more than clear that a false case has been foisted upon the accused and
that he was falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that
there has been non-compliance of section 15 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The said
contention will not hold good ground. In view of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Himachal Pradesh v/s. Pawan Kumar
reported in 2005 Cr. L.J. 2208, wherein the Court has held as follows :
A bag, briefcase or any such article or container, etc. can,
under no circumstances, be treated as body of a human
being. They are given a separate name and are identifiable as
such. They cannot even remotely be treated to be part of the
body of a human being. …... Therefore, it is not possible to
include these articles within the ambit of the word "person"
occurring in Section 50 of the Act.
12 The learned Special Court has also held that there is proper
compliance of section 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act. It is also held that the
statement of the accused was recorded under section 67 of the
N.D.P.S.Act and that he has admitted his guilt and the said document is
admissible in evidence. Although it is argued that the confession was
subsequently retracted, there is nothing on record to even remotely
suggest that the said statement was retracted. In fact, it appears from
Talwalkar
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:43:09 :::
10 910.apeal1367.12.doc
the record that the statement was shown to have been retracted only by
way of cross-examination.
13 The learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance
upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shantilal vs. State
of M.P. reported in (2014) Insc 1014.
“ The learned counsel for the State again is right in submitting that
clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 30, CrPC authorizes the
Court to award imprisonment in default of payment of fine up to
one-fourth term of imprisonment which the Court is competent to
inflict as punishment for the offence. But considering the
circumstances placed before us on behalf of the appellant-accused
that he is very poor; he is merely a carrier; he has to maintain his
family; it was his first offence; because of his poverty, he could not
pay the heavy amount of fine (rupees one lakh) and if he is ordered
to remain in jail even after the period of substantive sentence is
over only because of his inability to pay fine, serious prejudice will
be caused not only to him, but also to his family members who are
innocent. We are, therefore, of the view that though an amount of
payment of fine of rupees one lakh which is minimum as specified
in Section 18 of the Act cannot be reduced in view of the legislative
mandate, ends of justice would be met if we retain that part of the
direction, but order that in default of payment of fine of rupees one
lakh, the appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for six
months instead of three years as ordered by the trial court and
confirmed by the High Court.”
14 In view of the above discussion, the findings recorded by the
Special Judge call for no interference. The appellant is in custody since
2/9/2007. He has undergone substantive sentence of 11 years. In view
of this, the substantive sentence is upheld.
15 Hence, following order is passed :
Talwalkar
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:43:09 :::
11 910.apeal1367.12.doc
ORDER
(I) The appeal is partly allowed.
(II) The conviction of the appellant i.e. 11 years rigourous
imprisonment for the offence punishable under sections 8(C) read with
Section 21(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act
(N.D.P.S. Act) imposed by the learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S., Thane vide
th
Judgment and Order dated 30 October, 2012 is hereby confirmed.
(III) The sentence of fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- imposed upon the
appellant is maintained. However, the default sentence that is for non-
payment of fine amount is reduced to three months, instead of one year.
(IV) Writ be issued expeditiously.
(V) The professional fees to be paid to the Advocate appointed
Ms. Shraddha Sawant as per rule.
16 The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
[SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.]
Talwalkar
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:43:09 :::