Nijakat Sakka vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The appellants, Rizwan Sakka and Nijakat Sakka, were convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) by the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Mahasamund. They were sentenced to 20 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/-. The conviction stemmed from their apprehension on January 8, 2022, near village Patrapali, when police, acting on secret information, intercepted an Eicher truck. The appellants, identified as the driver and helper, were found transporting approximately 700 kg of Ganja concealed under scrape material. The seized Ganja, vehicle, mobile phones, and other items were documented, and samples were sent for FSL examination, which confirmed the presence of Ganja. The trial court found the prosecution's case proved beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the present appeals.

Held

The High Court held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Despite independent witnesses turning hostile, the evidence of police witnesses, including PW-12 (Investigating Officer), established the genuineness and correctness of the search and seizure proceedings. The seizure of Ganja, its weight, and samples were proven by the Executive Magistrate. The court found no palpable grounds to disbelieve the evidence or to suggest non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act that would affect the prosecution's case or create suspicion on the search and seizure. The FSL report Ex.-P/62 corroborated the finding that the seized samples contained Ganja. The appellants failed to provide any explanation for the presence of such a large quantity of Ganja in the vehicle they occupied. The trial court's judgment was deemed detailed, based on proper appreciation of evidence, and not perverse or contrary to law. Therefore, the judgment of conviction and sentence was affirmed. The appeals were dismissed, and the appellants were directed to serve the remaining jail sentence.

Key Issues

1. Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, considering alleged material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, and whether the appellants can be convicted based on this evidence? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act). Petitioner's Arguments: The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to material omissions and contradictions. There was non-compliance with mandatory provisions of Sections 42, 50, 52, 52-A, 55, and 57 of the NDPS Act, as well as Standing Order 1/89 regarding sample drawing procedures, vitiating the entire process. Independent witnesses did not support the prosecution. There were material irregularities in search and seizure, and discrepancies in the Investigating Officer's evidence. The appellants were merely driver and helper acting under the owner's instructions, who was not made an accused. Discrepancies existed in sampling and FSL submission, with alleged document manipulation. Respondent's Arguments: The prosecution followed all prescribed procedures under the NDPS Act. The appellants were found in possession of a huge quantity of Ganja (700 kg) and offered no explanation. All mandatory provisions were complied with, and the trial court's judgment was rightly passed, warranting dismissal of the appeals.