Jagdish Prashad Vs. State

Jagdish Prashad vs State

Disposition Appeal allowed Court Delhi Decided May 04, 1994

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/702577

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/702577
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Jaspal Singh, J.
Decided On: May 04, 1994
Case Number: Crl. Appeal No. 118 of 1991
Subject: Narcotics
Disposition: Appeal allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

a) In the instant case, the accused was convicted under Section 8 read with Section 21 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 -The form of the Centre for Forensic and Science Laboratory (CFSL) was neither deposited in 'Malkhana' nor sent to the CFSL along with the sample - thereforee, it was ru...

Key legal issue: Narcotics
Outcome / disposition: Appeal allowed
Acts & sections: Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jagdish Prashad

Advocate R.P. Luthra, amices Curia

Respondent

State

Advocate Raman Sahni, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
Cases Referred: Bombaiya v. State
Reported In: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)113; 54(1994)DLT424

Excerpt

a) in the instant case, the accused was convicted under section 8 read with section 21 of the narcotics drugs and psychotropic substances act, 1985 -the form of the centre for forensic and science laboratory (cfsl) was neither deposited in 'malkhana' nor sent to the cfsl along with the sample - thereforee, it was ruled that the accused was entitled to benefit of doubt and accordingly, he was liable to be acquittedb) in the instant case, the accused was given offer to be searched before a gazetted officer but no offer was made for effecting the search before a magistrate - it was ruled that complaint of section 50 of the narcotics drugs and psychotropic substances act, 1985, was partial - thereforee, failure to offer alternative choice to the accused would attract the order of acquittal - .....prosecution alleges that on february 17, 1989 the appellant was found to be in possession of 1 kg. & 900 grams of charas. he was put up on trial and the learned additional sessions judge finding him guilty returned a judgment of conviction and an order of sentence. aggrieved by the said judgment and order he preferred an appeal from jail and since he was not represented by a counsel the court appointed mr. r.p. luthra as an amices curiae. mercifully he has been brief but incisive.3. the first contention of mr. luthra is that neither the c.f.s.l. form was deposited in the malkhana nor is there any evidence as to where it was kept and that the prosecution has also not proved that it was taken to the central forensic science laboratory by the police officer who had taken the sample parcel to the said laboratory. he submits that this being the position the benefit of doubt must go to the appellant.4. undoubtedly, head constable yad ram, moharrar, malkhana who has entered the witness box as (pw-7) has no where stated that the c.f.s.l. form was also deposited in the malkhana or that he had ever handed over the same to the a.s.i. balbir singh (pw-8) who had taken the sample parcel to the central forensic science laboratory. even a.s.i. balbir singh is silent about it. my attention has been drawn to two judgments of this court namely, chameli devi v. state, 1993 jcc 293 and mool chand v. state, 1993 (2) dl 14. both the judgments do go to show that if the c.f.s.l. form is neither deposited in the malkhana nor sent to the c.f.s.l. along with the sample it would entitle the accused to benefit of doubt and acquittal. in mool chand's case the learned judge has placed reliance on lachho devi v. state, 1990 (2) ccc 395 and anoop joshi v. state, 1992 (2) ccc 314.5. it has next been contended that the offer given to the appellant with regard to his search was partial. he has drawn my attention to the evidence on the record which does go to show that the only offer made to the.....

Full Judgment

Mr. Jaspal Singh, J.

1. There is no need to loose much breath on this case. First, a brief resume' of the facts and then on to the crucial points.

2. The prosecution alleges that on February 17, 1989 the appellant was found to be in possession of 1 Kg. & 900 grams of Charas. He was put up on trial and the learned Additional Sessions Judge finding him guilty returned a judgment of conviction and an order of sentence. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order he preferred an appeal from Jail and since he was not represented by a Counsel the Court appointed Mr. R.P. Luthra as an amices Curiae. Mercifully he has been brief but incisive.

3. The first contention of Mr. Luthra is that neither the C.F.S.L. Form was deposited in the Malkhana nor is there any evidence as to where it was kept and that the prosecution has also not proved that it was taken to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory by the Police Officer who had taken the sample parcel to the said Laboratory. He submits that this being the position the benefit of doubt must go to the appellant.

4. Undoubtedly, Head Constable Yad Ram, Moharrar, Malkhana who has entered the witness box as (PW-7) has no where stated that the C.F.S.L. Form was also deposited in the Malkhana or that he had ever handed over the same to the A.S.I. Balbir Singh (PW-8) who had taken the sample parcel to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory. Even A.S.I. Balbir Singh is silent about it. My attention has been drawn to two judgments of this Court namely, Chameli Devi v. State, 1993 JCC 293 and Mool Chand v. State, 1993 (2) DL 14. Both the judgments do go to show that if the C.F.S.L. Form is neither deposited in the Malkhana nor sent to the C.F.S.L. along with the sample it would entitle the accused to benefit of doubt and acquittal. In Mool Chand's case the learned judge has placed reliance on Lachho Devi v. State, 1990 (2) CCC 395 and Anoop Joshi v. State, 1992 (2) CCC 314.

5. It has next been contended that the offer given to the appellant with regard to his search was partial. He has drawn my attention to the evidence on the record which does go to show that the only offer made to the appellant before his search was that he, if he so wished, could be produced before a Gazetted Officer for his search. There was no offer to get him searched in the presence of a Magistrate. Two judgments of this Court would go to show that this partial offer is a clear violation of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psycotropic Substances Act. Reference in this connection may be made to Chameli Devi v. State (supra) and Satish alias Bombaiya v. State 1991 JCC 617. Both these judgments lay down that a mere offer to get the person searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer is a partial offer limiting the choice and that it is incumbent upon the officer concerned to offer alternative choice also and that such a partial offer would invite an order of acquittal.

In view of what has been noticed by me above and following the precedents of this Court as noticed above, I do agree with Mr.Luthra that it is a case where the appeal deserves to be allowed. The appeal, consequently, is allowed and the appellant is acquitted of the charge. Copy of the judgment may be sent to the Superintendent lail, Delhi for information.

A word before I conclude. The Court is indebted to Mr. luthra turn the labour put in by him.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 1994 Same Parties Jagdish Prashad vs State Same Subject Narcotics Same Judge Jaspal Singh, J. Acts & Sections Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Narcotics