Ratan Lal Vs. State of M.P.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 613 of 2001
Petitioner: Ratan Lal
Respondent: State of M.P.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 613 of 2001
Judges: K.T. THOMAS & S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Oct 31, 2001
Head Note:
CRIMIAAL LAW
NDPS Act, 1985
a) Sections 15, 18 with 8 – Conviction under – No case of prosecution that poppy straw was cultivated or produced on an identified land – Conviction as upheld by High Court. Held, to be without application of mind. (Para 2)
b) Section 18 – Conviction – Licence to cultivate opium in name of mother in particular survey number – Cultivation however, in different survey by son (accused) though in permitted area – Said land not identified as lying in different survey. Held that conviction cannot be upheld. Reasonable doubt regarding identity of land entertained and benefit given. (Paras 4, 5)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The appellant is one of the three accused arraigned before the sessions court for facing a charge under sections 18 and 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The trial court convicted all the three accused under section 15 as well as 18 read with section 8 of the Act, after holding that no offence under section 20 of the Act had been made out. They were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 10 years and pay a fine of Rs.1 lakh separately under each count and directed those sentence to run separately. The High Court, after taking full evidence acquitted two of the accused and concurred with the trial court regarding the appellant under section 15 as well as 18 read with section 8 of the Act and confirmed the conviction and sentence passed on appellant herein and dismissed his appeal.
2. At the outset, we may point out that no case is even spelt out by the prosecution that any of the accused had either produced or cultivated poppy straw which is the crux of the offence involved in section 15. Nevertheless, the trial court convicted this appellant under section 15 of the Act which was upheld by the High Court without application of mind on that aspect.
3. Confining ourselves to the conviction under section 18 of the Act, we have to state the allegations made against the appellant. His mother (Dhapu Bai) had licence to cultivate opium in an extent of 10 acres, in survey no. 76/1 but the appellant cultivated opium in some other land lying in survey no.81/3 also. If the prosecution has succeeded in showing that the cultivation of opium was confined within 10 acres lying in survey no. 76/1, appellant is not liable to be convicted at all even assuming that he was not the licensee because the licence stood in the name of his mother. It is too much for us to say that as the licence stood in the name of his mother, the cultivation made by the appellant cannot be attributed to that of the mother for convicting the appellant on account of that.
4. As the question whether the appellant cultivated opium in any area lying within survey no. 81/3, prosecution has to prove with convincing evidence that the said land has been identified by somebody. PW6, the officer who went to the spot prepared a spot map for showing that cultivation of ganja was found in survey no. 81/3. But in cross examination, PW6 said that the spot map did not specify that the cultivation was in the land lying in survey no. 81/3. In other words, the crucial aspect in this case had been added by him only in his oral evidence. When the prosecution states that a particular cultivation is made on a particular land, the identity of which could be established only with reference to the survey no. 81/3, it is incumbent on the prosecution to prove beyond doubt that the land on which the questioned cultivation was found, was in fact lying within the survey no. 81/3.
5. As the consequences befalling the appellant are disastrous (if the conviction and sentence are to be upheld, he has to be in jail for the unusually long period of twenty years of his life), we expect serious exercise on the part of the prosecution to adduce best evidence in the matter for proving the case beyond all reasonable doubt. Unfortunately, prosecution had not done so. On going through the evidence, we are not satisfied that the opium cultivation, even if noticed by PW6, was not in the land lying in survey no. 76/1, as the licence to cultivate opium in that land was already granted to the mother of the appellant.
6. We entertain a reasonable doubt as to the identity of the land whether it is in survey no. 81/3 or not and hence, the benefit of the said doubt must certainly go to the appellant.
7. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence passed on him. We order the appellant to be released forthwith unless he is required in any other case. Fine, if any, paid shall be refunded to him.
1. The appellant is one of the three accused arraigned before the sessions court for facing a charge under sections 18 and 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The trial court convicted all the three accused under section 15 as well as 18 read with section 8 of the Act, after holding that no offence under section 20 of the Act had been made out. They were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 10 years and pay a fine of Rs.1 lakh separately under each count and directed those sentence to run separately. The High Court, after taking full evidence acquitted two of the accused and concurred with the trial court regarding the appellant under section 15 as well as 18 read with section 8 of the Act and confirmed the conviction and sentence passed on appellant herein and dismissed his appeal.
2. At the outset, we may point out that no case is even spelt out by the prosecution that any of the accused had either produced or cultivated poppy straw which is the crux of the offence involved in section 15. Nevertheless, the trial court convicted this appellant under section 15 of the Act which was upheld by the High Court without application of mind on that aspect.
3. Confining ourselves to the conviction under section 18 of the Act, we have to state the allegations made against the appellant. His mother (Dhapu Bai) had licence to cultivate opium in an extent of 10 acres, in survey no. 76/1 but the appellant cultivated opium in some other land lying in survey no.81/3 also. If the prosecution has succeeded in showing that the cultivation of opium was confined within 10 acres lying in survey no. 76/1, appellant is not liable to be convicted at all even assuming that he was not the licensee because the licence stood in the name of his mother. It is too much for us to say that as the licence stood in the name of his mother, the cultivation made by the appellant cannot be attributed to that of the mother for convicting the appellant on account of that.
4. As the question whether the appellant cultivated opium in any area lying within survey no. 81/3, prosecution has to prove with convincing evidence that the said land has been identified by somebody. PW6, the officer who went to the spot prepared a spot map for showing that cultivation of ganja was found in survey no. 81/3. But in cross examination, PW6 said that the spot map did not specify that the cultivation was in the land lying in survey no. 81/3. In other words, the crucial aspect in this case had been added by him only in his oral evidence. When the prosecution states that a particular cultivation is made on a particular land, the identity of which could be established only with reference to the survey no. 81/3, it is incumbent on the prosecution to prove beyond doubt that the land on which the questioned cultivation was found, was in fact lying within the survey no. 81/3.
5. As the consequences befalling the appellant are disastrous (if the conviction and sentence are to be upheld, he has to be in jail for the unusually long period of twenty years of his life), we expect serious exercise on the part of the prosecution to adduce best evidence in the matter for proving the case beyond all reasonable doubt. Unfortunately, prosecution had not done so. On going through the evidence, we are not satisfied that the opium cultivation, even if noticed by PW6, was not in the land lying in survey no. 76/1, as the licence to cultivate opium in that land was already granted to the mother of the appellant.
6. We entertain a reasonable doubt as to the identity of the land whether it is in survey no. 81/3 or not and hence, the benefit of the said doubt must certainly go to the appellant.
7. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence passed on him. We order the appellant to be released forthwith unless he is required in any other case. Fine, if any, paid shall be refunded to him.
