NABABUDDIN @ MALLU @ ABHIMANYU vs. STATE OF HARYANA

2023 INSC 1020 NON­REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2333 OF 2010 Nababuddin @ Mallu @ Abhimanyu              … Appellant versus State of Haryana                                         … Respondent J U D G M E N T ABHAY S. OKA, J. FACTUAL ASPECTS 1) The appellant who is accused no. 3, along with two co­ accused, was convicted by the learned Special Judge under the Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘NDPS Act’) for the offence punishable under Section 15 of NPDS Act. Learned Special Judge held that the prosecution had brought home the charge against the accused that they were found in conscious possession of poppy straw having the quantity of 205 kilograms without any licence or permit. The accused, including the appellant,  were ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/­ each. The default sentence was of imprisonment Signature Not Verified for two years. The conviction of the appellant and two others Digitally signed by Anita Malhotra Date: 2023.11.24 17:55:33 IST Reason: has   been   confirmed   by   the   High   Court   by   the   impugned judgment.  Criminal Appeal No. 2333 of 2010  Page 1 of 10 nd On 22  May 2001, Assistant Sub Inspector Dhian Singh 2) (PW­10), along with other police officials, was on patrolling duty in Ambala Cantonment. They received secret information in the afternoon that three parcels on platform no. 4 and two on platform no. 6 of Ambala Cantonment station contained contraband. The destination of the parcels was Kurail Railway Station. Therefore, a letter was addressed to the Chief Parcel Supervisor about the information with a request to arrange for   an   inspection.   The   inspector   in   charge   of   the   Railway Protection Force (R.P.F) was summoned, and the parcel was shifted to the office of the Chief Parcel Supervisor. The parcels were opened. A total of ten bags were found in five parcels, five bags containing 20 Kilograms of poppy straw each and the other five bags containing 21 Kilograms each. Necessary formalities of drawing panchnama, drawing samples, sealing th the parcels, etc., were done. After that, on 28   May 2001, Inspector Ram Phal (PW­11) and Dhian Singh (PW­10) visited railway station Kurail, the destination of the parcels. Krishan Dev Joshi (PW­2), the station supervisor, was apprised of the facts of the case. After that, accused no. 2 – Rahish   alias Munna, approached PW­2 with a railway receipt concerning the parcels in question. As per the instructions of the Police, he was asked to wait. PW­2 immediately informed the police. After some time, the appellant–Nababuddin  alias  Mallu  alias Abhimanyu, approached PW­2 and enquired about the same parcels. The accused no. 2, and the appellant were asked to st wait.   They were arrested. Subsequently, on 31   May 2001, accused no. 1 was arrested at railway station Ambala Cantt. Criminal Appeal No. 2333 of 2010  Page 2 of 10 It is alleged that accused no. 1 had got the parcel booked. The prosecution   examined   10   witnesses.   The   Special   Court recorded a finding that though the contraband was recovered during transit, the persons possessing railway receipt of the parcels shall be deemed to have control over the contraband and, thus, in conscious possession thereof. The High Court has confirmed the conviction.  SUBMISSIONS 3) The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that he is a rikshaw puller like the accused no. 2. According to the appellant, accused no. 2 had gone to enquire about the arrival of parcels on behalf of the owner to the railway station, and when he failed to return, the appellant went   to   the   railway   station   to   enquire   about   him.   His submission is that even the railway receipt of the parcels was not produced by the appellant but by the accused no. 2. He submitted that the case made out by the prosecution that the railway receipt stood in the name of the appellant had not been put to the appellant in his examination under Section 313   of   the   Code   of   Criminal   Procedure,   1973   (for   short, ‘CrPC’).   He   submitted   that   even   the   allegation   that   the appellant approached the station supervisor to enquire about the parcel was not put to the appellant in his examination under Section 313 of CrPC.  The learned counsel appearing for the respondent urged 4) that   both   the   material   circumstances   about   which   the appellant has made grievance were put to the appellant as Criminal Appeal No. 2333 of 2010  Page 3 of 10 can be seen from question nos. 7 and 15. Her submission is that the railway receipts stood in the name of the appellant (as Abhimanyu), and the very fact that he visited the railway station along with the accused no. 2 to enquire about the parcels   containing   contraband   shows   not   only   his involvement   but   also   constructive   possession   of   the contraband as the railway receipt was in his name. She would submit   that   there   is   no   reason   to   find   fault   with   the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts.  CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS We have considered the submissions and perused the 5) notes of evidence of the material prosecution witnesses. PW­2, Krishan   Dev   Joshi   was   the   station   superintendent   at   the th Kurail railway station. On 28   May 2001, according to his version, accused no. 2 approached him at the railway station. He   was   carrying   a   parcel   bilty   (railway   receipt   of   parcel booking). He enquired about the arrival of the parcels. He stated   that   as   per   the   instructions   of   the   police,   he   told accused no. 2 to sit and wait. After that, the appellant came there and enquired about the same parcels. He has not stated that   the   appellant   either   showed   or   produced   the   railway receipt. In fact, according to his version, the railway receipt was   with   accused   no.2.   In   the   cross­examination,   he   was confronted with the suggestion that the appellant was plying a rikshaw. He responded by stating that he was unable to deny the suggestion. However, he volunteered and stated that the appellant had been doing business in selling bed sheets, etc.,   on   his   bicycle.   PW­10,   Dhian   Singh   stated   that   the Criminal Appeal No. 2333 of 2010  Page 4 of 10 accused no.  2 came to  the  railway  station  with  a  railway receipt   to   enquire   about   the   consignment.   Meanwhile,   the appellant arrived to enquire about the same parcels. In the First Information Report of PW­10, Dhian Singh stated that the railway receipt was produced by accused no. 2. Thus, the incriminating circumstances brought on record against the appellant were: The railway receipt of parcels containing contraband a) was in his name (as Abhimanyu); and  b) He, along with the accused no. 2, enquired about the parcels containing contraband.  The finding of the courts is that as the railway receipt was in the name of the appellant, he shall be deemed to be in the custody of the contraband.  6) The material prosecution witnesses did not depose that the appellant produced the railway receipt. On the contrary, the said witnesses consistently say that accused no. 2 came to the railway station with the railway receipt. In   his   examination   under   Section   313   of   CrPC,   the 7) appellant came out with the following explanation: “ I   never   got   booked   any   parcel   through railways. I have got nothing to do with any parcels. No RR or builty was ever recovered from   me.   In   fact   Rahish   being   rickshaw puller had gone to enquire about the arrival of luggage on behalf of the owner. On his failure to return after 15 minutes I had gone to verify about Rahish, I also being rickshaw puller. Thereafter, I was also made to sit by the   police   and   implicated   falsely   in   the Criminal Appeal No. 2333 of 2010  Page 5 of 10 present case and on seeing us apprehended owner fled from the spot. I am poor and is meeting   two   times   meals   with   great difficulty. ”   We   have   carefully   perused   the   examination   of   the 8) appellant   under   Section   313   of   CrPC.   The   circumstance against the appellant that he visited the railway station and enquired with the station supervisor about the contraband parcels   has   not   been   put   to   the   appellant   during   his examination   under   Section   313   of   Cr.P.C.   Question   no.   6 asked to the appellant reads thus: “ Q.6   That   on   28.5.2001,   Ram   Phal Inspector took the investigation of this case in his hand. He also alongwith other police officials went to Railway Station, Kurali, in Punjab   and   contacted   Station   Supervisor, Krishan Dutt Joshi there. Meanwhile, your co­accused Rahish alias Munna arrived at Railway   Station   in   the   office   of   station Supervisor and he produced a builty Ex.PC to the said station Supervisor and inquired whether their parcels had reached or not. The   said   station   supervisor   disclosed   the fact   to   the   police.   Meanwhile   your   co accused also came there, what you have to say? Ans:­ It is incorrect. ”   Even the alleged circumstance that the railway receipt was in the appellant's name has not been put to him in his statement under Section 313 of CrPC.  The learned counsel appearing for the respondent relied 9) upon question no. 7, which reads thus: Q.7 That station Supervisor produced RR “ receipt No.732118 to the police, the same Criminal Appeal No. 2333 of 2010  Page 6 of 10 was   taken   into   possession   vide   recovery memo   Ex.PB.   You   were   arrested   by   the police, what have you to say? Ans:­It   is   incorrect,   However,   police arrested us and planted a false case upon us. ”   Even in question no. 7, it is not put to the accused that the railway  receipt of  the  parcel  was  in  his  name  or  that   the consignment of parcels containing contraband was booked in his name. Even this material circumstance is not put to the accused.  Thus, both the circumstances on which the prosecution 10) relied upon against the appellant were not put to him in his examination under Section 313 of CrPC. Even the question no.15 does not incorporate any specific circumstance against the accused.  11) Regarding   the   importance   of   the   examination   of   the accused   under   Section   313   of   CrPC,   we   may   refer   to   a judgment of this Court in the case of   Raj Kumar v. State 1 . In paragraph 17, this Court has summarised (NCT of Delhi) the law on the aspect which reads thus: The law consistently laid down by this Court “17. can be summarised as under: (i) It is the duty of the Trial Court to put each material   circumstance   appearing   in   the evidence   against   the   accused   specifically, distinctively   and   separately.   The   material circumstance means the circumstance or the material on the basis of which the prosecution is seeking his conviction;  1 2023 SCC online SC 609 Criminal Appeal No. 2333 of 2010  Page 7 of 10 (ii) The   object   of   examination   of   the   accused under Section 313 is to enable the accused to explain   any   circumstance   appearing   against him in the evidence; (iii) The   Court   must   ordinarily   eschew   material circumstances   not   put   to   the   accused   from consideration while dealing with the case of the particular accused; (iv) The failure to put material circumstances to the accused amounts to a serious irregularity. It will vitiate the trial if it is shown to have prejudiced the accused; (v) If   any   irregularity   in   putting   the   material circumstance to the accused does not result in failure of justice, it becomes a curable defect. However,   while   deciding   whether   the   defect can be cured, one of the considerations will be the   passage   of   time   from   the   date   of   the incident; (vi) In case such irregularity is curable, even the appellate court can question the accused on the material circumstance which is not put to him; and (vii) In a given case, the case can be remanded to the Trial Court from the stage of recording the supplementary   statement   of   the   concerned accused under Section 313 of CrPC. (viii) While deciding the question whether prejudice has been caused to the accused because of the omission, the delay in raising the contention is only   one   of   the   several   factors   to   be considered. ”   Thus,   the   two   circumstances   alleged   against   the 12) appellant will have to be kept out of consideration. There is no other material on record to connect the appellant with the Criminal Appeal No. 2333 of 2010  Page 8 of 10 offence.  The incident is of May 2001, and therefore, it will be unjust to subject the appellant to further examination under Section 313 of CrPC at this stage, nearly twenty­two and half years from the date of the alleged recovery of the contraband. As   the   only   material   circumstances   pleaded   by   the prosecution   against   the   appellant   were   not   put   to   him,   a serious prejudice has been caused to the appellant's defence. Indeed, the appellant may not have earlier raised the issue regarding the inadequacy of examination under Section 313 of CrPC.  However, in this case, the omission goes to the root of the matter as far as the appellant is concerned. According to us, it is a serious and material illegality committed by the Court   as   the   examination   of   the   appellant   was   not   made under Section 313 of CrPC on the aforesaid circumstances. 13) The appellant has undergone incarceration of five and a half years. If, after the lapse of more than twenty­two years, he is again subjected to examination under Section 313 of CrPC, it will cause prejudice to him. Therefore, the failure to put   two   relevant   circumstances   to   the   appellant   in   his examination   under   Section   313   CrPC   will   be   fatal   to   the prosecution case. Hence, on this ground, we hold that the appellant’s conviction cannot be sustained. 14)   Therefore, the appeal must succeed, and the impugned judgments of the Trial Court and High Court are set aside only in so far as the present appellant is concerned. We are not disturbing the conviction of the other two accused. The Criminal Appeal No. 2333 of 2010  Page 9 of 10 appellant is acquitted of the offence alleged against him. His bail bonds stand cancelled.  15) The appeal is allowed on the above terms.  ……………………..J.      (Abhay S. Oka) ……………………..J.      (Pankaj Mithal) New Delhi; November 24, 2023. Criminal Appeal No. 2333 of 2010  Page 10 of 10