In CRA-S-2269-SB-2004(O&M)-PUNJ HC-P&H HC upholds Trial Court’s order of conviction passed against accused under NDPS Act where he was in conscious possession of recovered contraband and had failed to render reasonable explanation for presence of bags containing contraband in car driven by him Justice H. S. Madaan [05-08-2022]

Read Order: Sheikh Badroo Doza v. State of Punjab

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, August 13, 2022: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has upheld the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court against the petitioner, accused of committing an offence under Section 15 of the NDPS Act. 

The Bench of Justice H. S. Madaan held,  “Thus, the amount of recovery of contraband involved rules out the possibility of any false plantation, rather it comes out that the accused was in conscious possession of the recovered contraband since he has failed to render a reasonable or plausible explanation for the presence of bags containing contraband in the car having been driven by him standing in the name of his wife. He was rightly convicted and sentenced by the trial Court.”

The Police party on patrol duty observed a Maruti Car standing on the right side of the road with its front portion having hit a tree. On inspection of the car, it was found that two gunny bags having contents were lying in the dicky of the car with two gunny bags full being there on the rear seat of the car. 

In the meanwhile, J.C.O./Naib Subedar Sh.P.C. Berman from a nearby military camp came and produced the accused Sheikh Badroo Doza before the Investigating Officer. 

Sh.P.C. Berman disclosed that accused was driving the car, which had met with an accident and the accused had received injuries for that reason he had been taken to first aid room in the military camp and after providing the first aid, he had been produced before the Investigating Officer; since the police party suspected that some contraband was being carried in the bags placed in the car and the Investigating Officer wanted to search the car and the bags, he informed the accused of his right to get the car searched in presence of a Magistrate or a gazetted officer. On being weighed, the residue poppy-husk in each of the bags came out to be 32 kgs.250 gms. 

The accused opted to get the search conducted in presence of a gazetted officer. The search of the maruti car revealed that the driving licence of the accused was there, which was also taken into possession. The personal search of the accused was conducted. 

The accused was arrested and later charge-sheeted for an offence under Section 15 of the NDPS Act. The trial Court convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months.

After hearing arguments, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as mentioned above, which left him aggrieved and he filed the present appeal, which was taken up in November 2004 when it was admitted for regular hearing and on that very day, on an application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. having been filed by the appellant/accused for suspension of his sentence of imprisonment during the pendency of appeal, the same was allowed. 

Now the case came up for regular hearing.

After considering the rival submissions, the Court observed that the amount of recovery of contraband involved ruled out the possibility of any false plantation, rather the Court opined, 

“it comes out that the accused was in conscious possession of the recovered contraband since he has failed to render a reasonable or plausible explanation for the presence of bags containing contraband in the car having been driven by him standing in the name of his wife.”

The Bench rightly held that the accused was rightly convicted and sentenced by the trial Court. 

Also, the Bench was of the opinion, 

“Considering the contraband recovered from him, the trial Court has been somewhat lenient with the convict awarding him substantive imprisonment of 10 years only, which is the minimum prescribed for the offence.”

Finding no illegality or infirmity in the impugned decision, the Court upheld the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence whereas the appeal was found to be without any merit and the same was thus dismissed accordingly. 

Since the appellant was on bail granted to them by the High Court, his bail was cancelled and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda was directed to issue arrest warrants to get him arrested so as to make him undergo the remaining sentence.