Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

The Patna High Court set aside the conviction of two men who had been sentenced to 12 years imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,00,000 each for allegedly possessing 66 kg of ganja. The Court found that serious procedural lapses and inconsistencies in evidence created doubt about the prosecution’s case, thereby granting them the benefit of doubt.

Background

The case began when police at Vijayepur, Gopalganj, received information on the night of 28 February 2013 that a white Indigo car carrying contraband would pass through Majhbaliya Bazar. The police intercepted the vehicle and allegedly found two bags containing 50 packets of ganja and one red polythene bag with two bundles of ganja. The total weight was said to be 66 kg. Samples were drawn, and a seizure list was prepared.

The trial court convicted the appellants under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act in 2016 and sentenced them to 12 years rigorous imprisonment.

Defence Arguments

The appellants challenged the conviction before the High Court, arguing:

• The seizure witnesses were not examined during trial.
• The seized ganja was never produced before the court, nor was there proof of safe custody.
• There were contradictions in witness testimony about whether the weighing and sampling occurred at the place of seizure or the police station.
• The Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report did not specify weight, seal, or method of testing, making it unreliable.
• There was non-compliance of Sections 42 and 57 of the NDPS Act, which require recording information in writing and reporting to superior officers within 72 hours.

Prosecution Arguments

The State argued that:

• The seizure list and FSL report proved recovery of ganja.
• Minor contradictions should not affect the case when overall recovery was clear.
• Non-examination of some witnesses did not weaken the prosecution.

Court’s Findings

The High Court found several critical lapses:

• The seizure witnesses were not examined.
• The seized ganja was never produced before court, and safe custody was not proven.
• Contradictions existed among police witnesses about whether samples were drawn and where weighing took place.
• The FSL report was vague and incomplete.
• The statutory requirements of Section 42(2) and Section 57 of the NDPS Act were not complied with at all.
• The trial court failed to properly question the accused under Section 313 CrPC about incriminating circumstances, violating the principle of natural justice.

Decision

The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The appellants were acquitted, and their conviction and sentence were set aside. They were ordered to be released immediately unless wanted in any other case.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

For Accused in NDPS Cases

The judgment reinforces that convictions under the NDPS Act require strict compliance with procedural safeguards. Any lapse in seizure, custody, or compliance with statutory provisions can entitle the accused to acquittal.

For Law Enforcement

The case highlights the importance of meticulous adherence to NDPS procedures—such as recording station diary entries, producing seized material, maintaining custody records, and ensuring proper sampling.

For Judiciary

This ruling stresses that courts must ensure compliance with Section 313 CrPC, giving accused persons a real opportunity to respond to each incriminating circumstance.

Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision

• Was the conviction sustainable despite procedural lapses in seizure and custody?
  • Decision: No. Failure to produce seized ganja and comply with NDPS provisions raised serious doubts.
• Was the accused properly examined under Section 313 CrPC?
  • Decision: No. The trial court questioned them in a slipshod manner, which was a violation of fair trial rights.
• Final Relief Granted?
  • Conviction and 12-year sentence were set aside. The appellants were acquitted and ordered to be released.

Judgments Referred by Parties

• State of U.P. v. Mohd. Iqram, AIR 2011 SC 2296
• Naval Kishore v. State of Bihar, (2004) 7 SCC 502
• Tara Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1951 SC 44
• Kurukshetra University v. Prithvi Singh, 2018 (2) PLJR 177 (SC)

Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court

• Ashok v. State of M.P., (2011) 5 SCC 123
• Karnail Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2000) 7 SCC 632
• Kishan Chand v. State of Haryana, (2013) 2 SCC 502

Case Title

Parshuram Bind & Another v. State of Bihar

Case Number

Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 404 of 2016 (arising out of Vijayepur P.S. Case No. 28 of 2013, Gopalganj)

Citation(s)

2021(2) PLJR 81

Coram and Names of Judges

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashwani Kumar Singh
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava

Names of Advocates and who they appeared for

• For the appellants: Mr. Ansul, Mr. Abhinav Ashok, Mr. Aditya Pandey, Ms. Sagarika, Mr. Navneet Kumar
• For the State: Ms. Shashi Bala Verma, APP

Link to Judgment

NSM0MDQjMjAxNiMxI04=-eCT9zwTq–am1–3k=

If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.