Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jorge Renan Solis Fernandez vs Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence on 13 November, 2024
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1 CRA-4282-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 4282 of 2024
(JORGE RENAN SOLIS FERNANDEZ Vs DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE )
Dated : 13-11-2024
Shri Rishi Malhotra, learned senior counsel with Shri Lucky Bijolia,
learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Chandan Airen and Ms. Anita Rathore, learned counsel for the
respondent.
Heard on IA No.16258/2024 which is first application for suspension
of jail sentence under section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on
behalf of appellant Jorge Renan Solis Fernandez.
02. As per prosecution case, one Mr. Kamal Kumar Sharma (PW-1)
received an information from his sources that one foreign national will be
visiting Indore between 24th September to 27th September 2018 and one
Manu Gupta along with Mohammad Sadiq shall hold a meeting with the
foreigner either on 24th or 25th September 2018 at M/s. Science
Intermediary, G-1, Luxury House, 10″ South Tukoganj, Indore in
connection with supply/smuggling of huge quantity of Fentanyl HCL and the
said information was further communicated telephonically to Shri Nitin
Aggarwal (PW-31), the then DD, IZU, on 21.09.2018 through Shri Jaspreet
Singh Sukhija (PW-30), the then Deputy Director, DRI, HORS, New Delhi.
The said Shri Nitin Aggarwal (PW-31) passed on the said information to Shri
Hari Shankar Gurjar, the complainant herein (PW-32). On the basis of the
said information, various teams were constituted by DRI on 25.09.2018 and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 11/14/2024
5:45:09 PM
2 CRA-4282-2024
raids were conducted at 10, South Tukaganj, Indore and at second floor of
111-B, Polo Ground. It is alleged that contraband Fentanyl HCL was
recovered from both the above mentioned places. During search at 10, South
Tukaganj, the officers of DRI alleged to have recovered and seized
commercial quantity of Fentanyl HCL i.e. 4077 grams in the presence of
three accused persons namely, Mohd. Sadiq, Manu Gupta and Solis
Fernandez Jorge and in the presence of one Man Singh Dandotiya PW-17.
Similarly, during search at 2nd Floor of 111-B, Polo Ground, Indore, the
officers of DRI is alleged to have recovered and seized commercial quantity
of Fentanyl HCL i.e. 5110 grams in the presence of two witnesses namely,
Majid Khan PW-25 and Ram Chander Chaudhary PW-26 on 25.09.2018.
Similarly, during the search at G-12, Amar Aangan, Basant Vihar, Indore,
the officers of DRI alleged to have recovered and seized commercial
quantity of Fentanyl HCL i.e. 1724 grams on 26.09.2018. Thus, the entire
quantity of alleged recovery of contraband was 10911 grams. The
prosecution examined 32 witnesses in support of its case whereas defence
examined 2 witnesses. The learned trial Court had also examined chemical
expert Ms. Seema Stivastav as court witness. After arguments the Ld. Spl.
Judge found the appellant guilty of offences u/s 21 (C), and 29 read with 8
(C) & 23 (C) of NDPS Act vide impugned judgment dated 12.05.2023 and
sentenced the appellant to undergo RI for 20 years and also imposed a fine of
Rs. 2 Lakh each and was also ordered to further undergo rigorous
imprisonment of 1 year for default of payment of fine, vide order dated
12.05.2023.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 11/14/2024
5:45:09 PM
3 CRA-4282-2024
03. Counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant is a resident of
Mexico and understands only Spanish language. It is vehemently argued that
during the trial, the appellant has been deprived of his valuable rights of fair
trial. As the provisions of Section 273, 277, 278(3), 279, 281 & 318 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short CRPC) have not been followed
which sum and substance provide that while trying an accused it must be
ensured that he understands the proceedings and should also be provided a
proper interpretation of the evidence in language which he understands.
Thus, on account of non-compliance of mandatory provision of the Cr.P.C.,
the appellant has been denied a fair trial as guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India, therefore, the trial is vitiated.
04. It is argued that there is non-compliance of provisions of section
50 and section 32B of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985 (hereinafter for short NDPS Act). It is urged that the appellant has been
acquitted under section 27A and section 27A r/w section 29 of NDPS Act
and, therefore, the appellant could not have been convicted under section
21(C), 23(C) & 8(C) of NDPS Act. He further argued that even if the entire
prosecution case is accepted, the charge is established only for
attempt/preparation to export and import the contraband and also intention to
purchase the said contraband. There is no provision under the Act making an
attempt to be an offence under NDPS Act. The trial Court has erred while
passing an order of sentence after conviction contrary to the provisions of
section 318 of the CRPC. It ought to have referred the matter to the High
Court for the purpose of sentence. It is further urged that the trial Court
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 11/14/2024
5:45:09 PM
4 CRA-4282-2024
imposed the sentence higher than the minimum sentence prescribed under the
Act contrary to the provisions of section 32B of NDPS Act. In support of his
submission, he has placed reliance on a Single Bench judgment passed by
Delhi High Court in the case of Tuncay Alankus vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation & Anr. dated 23.05.2008 i n CRL.M.C. 2904/2004 for
imposition of sentence higher than the minimum sentence under section 32B
of NDPS Act, he referred the judgment passed by Single Bench of the High
Court of Orissa, Cuttack in CRLA No.36/2014 (Kamal Franklin Patra @
Raja & Ors. vs. State of Odisha) and other connected appeals. In regard to
his submission for non-compliance of section 50 of NDPS Act, he relied on
the judgment passed by High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal
Appeal No.6330/2022 in the case of Akash Garg vs. State of Punjab . He also
relied on the orders of suspension of sentence passed by High Court of
Punjab and Haryana in CRM No.1950/2024 in the case of Baljinder Singh
vs. State of Haryana.
05. Per contra, counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer for grant
of suspension of sentence. He submitted that acting upon intelligence, the
officers of DRI on 25-26/09/2018 have seized six packets of “Fentanyl”
having total weight 4077 grams (4 Kgs.) at M/s. Science Intermediary from
the joint and conscious possession of the appellant and other two co-accused
Shri Manu Gupta and Shri Mohd. Sadik. Upon the information supplied by
the co-accused Shri Manu Gupta, during the search at M/s. Science
Intermediary, G-1, Luxury House, 10, South Tukoganj, Indore a further
search at the office premises of the co-Appellant Shri Manu Gupta situated at
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 11/14/2024
5:45:09 PM
5 CRA-4282-2024
M/s. Mondiale Merchantile (P) Limited, G-12, Amar Angan, Basant Vihar,
Colony, Indore was also conducted and at the instance of co-appellant 8
bottles containing “Fentanyl” were seized on 26.09.2018 and out of these 8
bottles, contents of seven bottles seized from the premises having exclusive
possession of the co-appellant Shri Manu Gupta were found to contain
“Fentanyl” total weighing 1.724 Kgs. and only one bottle was not found to
have any psychotropic/Narcotic Substance. Another search was also
conducted at the Laboratory of co-accused Shri Mohd. Sadique situated at
III-B, Pologround, Indore and seized 4286 gram (4.2 Kgs) of “Fentanyl” and
also the raw material for manufacturing the contraband were seized. Thus,
the total quantity seized in the case is 10.911 Kgs which is many times more
than the commercial quantity of “Fentanyl”. After conclusion of the trial,
learned trial Court has found the appellant as well as the co-accused persons
guilty for the offences under Section 8/21(c) r/w 23 (c), 29 of the NDPS Act,
1985 and vide Judgement dated 12.05.2023 sentenced the appellant to
undergo R.I. for 20 years alongwith fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- each.
0 6 . Combating the submission of the learned counsel for the
respondent argued that there is no denial of fair trial as there is no violation
of provisions of section 273, 277, 279(2) & 318 of CRPC. There is also no
violation of the provisions of section 50 & 32B of NDPS Act. The
conviction is based on after due appreciation of evidence. The appellant was
represented by various eminent lawyers and referred various order-sheets to
show that the appellant was permitted to seek legal advice from Mexican law
authorities. The charges were read over to him and were explained to the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 11/14/2024
5:45:09 PM
6 CRA-4282-2024
appellant with the assistance of an interpreter Shri Mohan Chandani. After
framing of the charges, he never objected about the translation of the charges
into Spanish language as incorrect. His contention regarding that he was
unable to understand the charges, is an afterthought as no such plea had been
taken. In the Criminal Revision filed before this Court as Cr.R. 02/2020, he
also filed an application through his advocate before the trial Court for
appointing a new interpreter and by order dated 13.12.2019, he was granted
liberty to engage a new interpreter. He did not engage a new interpreter if he
had doubted the credibility of the interpreter appointed by prosecution. The
appellant at the time of statement under section 313 Cr.P.C., the assistance of
an interpreter engaged by the appellant himself through his Advocate was
provided. He filed an application under section 315(1)(a) Cr.P.C. at the stage
of defence evidence but he has not produced any evidence in his defence. He
also relied on the testimony of one Shri Udit Bhargav (PW-13), Shri Bhavani
Shankar (PW-2) and Shri Naveen Kumar Soni (PW-21). Thus, the contention
of the appellant that he was denied fair trial sans merit. He also argued that
the provisions of section 50 of NDPS Act & other provisions were followed.
The application for suspension of jail sentence of co-convicts has already
been rejected in Criminal Appeal No.8778/2023 and in Criminal Appeal
No.8711/2023. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the
judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Shivnarayan Kabra vs.
State of Madras, AIR 1967 SC 986 . He vehemently argued that at the stage
of consideration of application under section 389, the Appellate Court should
not re-appreciate the evidence.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 11/14/2024
5:45:09 PM
7 CRA-4282-2024
0 7 . The quantity of contraband is much higher quantity than the
commercial quantity prescribed for the same and, therefore, the bar under
section 37 of NDPS Act would apply. In support of submission, he has
placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of
Ratan Kumar Vishwas vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (2009) 1 SCC 482 . He
further referred the judgment passed by Single Bench of this Court in the
case of Gauri Shankar Ramanna & Ors. vs. State of M.P. 2008(4) M.P.H.T.
301. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions and the judgments, he prayed
for dismissal of application for suspension of sentence.
08. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
0 9 . The first question arises for consideration that whether there is
non-compliance of provisions of Section 273, 277, 278(3), 279, 281 & 318
of CRPC. In order to appreciate the said issue, it is apposite to refer certain
provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XXIII of
the CRPC.
“272. Language of Courts. –The State
Government may determine what shall be,
for purposes of this Code, the language of
each Court within the State other than the
High Court.
273. Evidence to be taken in presence of
accused.–Except as otherwise expressly
provided, all evidence taken in the course of
the trial or other proceeding shall be taken in
the presence of the accused, or, when his
personal attendance is dispensed with, in the
presence of his pleader.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 11/14/2024
5:45:09 PM
8 CRA-4282-2024
Explanation.–In this section, “accused”
includes a person in relation to whom any
proceeding under Chapter VIII has been
commenced under this Code.
277. Language of record of evidence. –In
every case where evidence is taken down
under Section 275 or Section 276,–
(a) if the witness gives evidence in the
language of the Court, it shall be taken down
in that language;
(b) if he gives evidence in any other
language, it may, if practicable, be taken
down in that language, and if it is not
practicable to do so, a true translation of the
evidence in the language of the Court shall be
prepared as the examination of the witness
proceeds, signed by the Magistrate or
presiding Judge, and shall form part of the
record;
(c) where under clause (b) evidence is taken
down in a language other than the language
of the Court, a true translation thereof in the
language of the Court shall be prepared as
soon as practicable, signed by the Magistrate
or presiding Judge, and shall form part of the
record:
Provided that when under clause (b) evidence
is taken down in English and a translation
thereof in the language of the Court is not
required by any of the parties, the Court may
dispense with such translation.
279. Interpretation of evidence to accused or
his pleader. –(1) Whenever any evidence is
given in a language not understood by the
accused, and he is present in Court in person,
it shall be interpreted to him in open Court inSignature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 11/14/2024
5:45:09 PM
9 CRA-4282-2024
a language understood by him.
(2) If he appears by pleader and the evidence
is given in a language other than the language
of the Court, and not understood by the
pleader, it shall be interpreted to such pleader
in that language.
(3) When documents are put for the purpose
of formal proof, it shall be in the discretion
of the Court to interpret as much thereof as
appears necessary.
318. Procedure where accused does not
understand proceedings.–If the accused,
though not of unsound mind, cannot be made
to understand the proceedings, the Court may
proceed with the inquiry or trial; and, in the
case of a Court other than a High Court, if
such proceedings result in a conviction, the
proceedings shall be forwarded to the High
Court with a report of the circumstances of
the case, and the High Court shall pass
thereon such order as it thinks fit.”
1 0 . Section 272 of CRPC provides that the State Government may
determine what shall be, for purposes of this Code, the language of each
Court within the State other than the High Court. Admittedly, in the State of
Madhya Pradesh, the language of the District Court is Hindi. As per Section
273 of CRPC evidence has to be taken in presence of accused.
11. Section 277 of CRPC engrafts the language of record of evidence.
It is provided that where the evidence is taken down under section 275 or
section 276,- (a) if the witness gives evidence in the language of the Court, it
shall be taken down in that language. As per sub-section (b) if he gives
evidence in any other language, it may, if practicable, be taken down in that
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 11/14/2024
5:45:09 PM
10 CRA-4282-2024
language, and if it is not practicable to do so, a true translation of the
evidence in the language of the Court shall be prepared as the examination of
the witness proceeds, signed by the Magistrate or presiding Judge, and shall
form part of the record. Sub-section (c) provides that evidence is taken under
Clause (b) in a language other than the language of the Court, a true
translation thereof in the language of the Court shall be prepared as soon as
practicable, signed by the Magistrate or presiding Judge, and shall form part
of the record. Admittedly, in the present case the deposition of witnesses
were in the language of the Court i.e. Hindi, therefore, in the facts of the
present case the same would not attract.
12. The relevant section in the present case would be section 279 in
order to meet out the submission of counsel for the parties which deals with
interpretation of evidence to an accused or his pleader. Sub-section 1
provides that whenever any evidence is given in a language not understood
by the accused, and he is present in the Court in person, it shall be
interpreted to him in open Court in a language understood by him. Sub-
section (2) further states that if he appears by pleader and the evidence is
given in a language other than the language of the Court, and not understood
by the pleader, it shall be interpreted to such pleader in that language. Sub-
section (3) says that when documents are put for the purpose of formal proof,
it shall be in the discretion of the Court to interpret as much thereof as
appears necessary.
1 3 . The contention of counsel for the appellant that the appellant
understands only Spanish language and was not able to understand the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 11/14/2024
5:45:09 PM
11 CRA-4282-2024
deposition of the witnesses, therefore, the deposition should have been
interpreted to him in the open Court in the language understood by him. It is
further argued that he has been provided translator only at the stage of
framing of the charge and recording of the statement under section 313
CRPC, therefore, the fair trial is denied.
1 4 . We have perused the record of the trial Court and find that
appellant was provided with the copy of Spanish translation of the charge-
sheet and was also provided services of an interpreter and the trial Court had
also granted permission to the appellant to appoint an interpreter of his
choice through his advocate which is evident from the order-sheet dated
15.07.2019. On 23.09.2019, the charges were framed and the same were read
over to him and were explained to the appellant with the assistance of an
interpreter Shri Mohan Chandani. He did not raise any objection about the
translator into Spanish language being incorrect translation. The trial Court
by order dated 13.12.2019 gave liberty to the appellant to engage a new
interpreter of his own choice if he has any doubt about the credibility of
interpreter of the prosecution, but he did not appoint any new interpreter as
recorded in the order-sheet dated 13.12.2019. The trial Court has examined
the appellant under section 313 of the CRPC with the assistance of an
interpreter and he also filed written statement under section 313(5) of CRPC.
At this stage of defence evidence, an application under section 315(1)(a)
CRPC was filed on 03.03.2023, but he has not produced any witness in his
defence. As per the testimony of Shri Bhawani Shankar (PW-2), Shri Udit
Bhargava (PW-13), Shri Naveen Kumar Soni (PW-21), it is established that
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 11/14/2024
5:45:09 PM
12 CRA-4282-2024
the appellant was well conversant with the English language. During the
course of investigation, statement of the appellant was recorded in the
presence of jail authorities at District Jail, Indore in which appellant replied
in English language and wrote the answers to the questions put to him in
English, which also proved that the appellant was well conversant with
English language. The appellant has also been seen communicating with the
co-convict in CCTV footage, who does not understand Spanish language as
per the statement of co-convict. In this regard, a specific finding has been
recorded by the trial Court after appreciating the evidence in para-250 & 251
of the judgment.
1 5 . Upon perusal of the order-sheet dated 25.01.2019, it is also
evident that the trial Court granted permission to Mexican Attorney of Law
Mr. Rafel Jalse Gongalwis to provide legal advice to the appellant. Thus, we
do not find any merit in the contention of counsel for the appellant that there
is non-compliance of provisions of section 318 of CRPC that the appellant
cannot be made to understand the proceedings.
16. Counsel for the appellant fairly submitted that during the course of
trial, the various orders passed by the trial Court were not challenged by him
before any Court of law. He never filed any petition under section 482 of
CRPC or writ petition raising all these grievances. After the conviction, the
appellant filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
WP No.21510/2024 raising similar grievances about denial of fair trial. The
Writ Court declined to grant such relief in a writ petition after the conviction
and when an appeal was already filed against the order of conviction.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 11/14/2024
5:45:09 PM
13 CRA-4282-2024
However, in para-16 the Court observed that the appellant/writ petitioner can
raise all the grounds as are available to him under the law in the pending
Criminal Appeal. The appellant has relied on the judgment passed by Delhi
High Court in the case of Tuncay Alankus (supra) that would not render any
assistance to the facts of the present case. The said petition was filed before
the conviction. In the said case also the Single Bench of High Court declined
to interfere by not accepting the contention of the petitioner about the
competence of the interpreter on the ground that the petitioner was also
assisted by the pleader, who knew the English language. In the present case,
we have already referred the various order-sheets of the trial Court which
clearly establish that the fair and sufficient opportunity was provided to the
appellant during trial and even he was permitted to appoint his own
interpreter. Thus, the first contention of the appellant that he has been denied
right to fair trial is answered negative and there is no violation of the
provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
17. Even otherwise in the present case in pursuant to the said personal
search there is no recovery and, therefore, the said ground would not be of
any significance. In this regard, judgment may be referred in the case of State
of Punjab vs. Baljinder Singh (2019) 10 SCC 473.
NON-COMPLIANCE OF SECTIONS 50 & 32B OF NDPS ACT
1 8 . The other submission of the counsel for the appellant that non
compliance of the provisions of section 50 is concerned, on 25-26.09.2018
on a raid conducted by the prosecution, 6 packets of “Fentanyl” having total
weight of 4077 grams (4 Kgs.) at M/s. Science Intermediary from the joint
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 11/14/2024
5:45:09 PM
14 CRA-4282-2024
and conscious possession of the appellant and 2 other accused persons were
seized. Upon the information supplied by the co-accused Shri Manu Gupta
during the search at M/s. Science Intermediary, G-1, Luxury House, 10,
South Tukoganj, Indore a further search at the office premises of the co-
appellant Shri Manu Gupta situated at M/s. Mondiale Merchantile (P)
Limited, G-12, Amar Angan, Basant Vihar Colony, Indore was also searched
and at the instance of co-appellant 8 bottles containing “Fentanyl” were
seized on 26.09.2018 and out of these 8 bottles contents of seven bottles
seized from the premises having exclusive possession of the co-appellant
Shri Manu Gupta were found to contain “Fentanyl” total weighing 1.724
Kgs. Another search was also conducted at the instance of co-accused Shri
Mohd. Sadique and quantity of 4286 Kgs of “Fentanyl” was seized. There is
no merit in regard to the non-compliance of provisions of section 50 of
NDPS Act because the contraband was seized from a factory premises which
was found to be in possession of the appellant and the other co-accused
persons. The procedure prescribed under section 41 and section 50 of NDPS
Act was followed as Memorandum of Arrest Ex.P/168 & P/169 bears
signatures of panch and is counter signed by the appellant and information of
his arrest had been given to his wife which has been clearly mentioned in the
arrest memo. The reasons of his arrest had also been explained and
mentioned in the arrest memorandum. Prosecution witness Navin Soni (PW-
21) deposed that he was working in DRI, Indore. He was informed by the
Deputy Director of his Department Shri Nitin Agrawal that some actions are
to be taken in some case. His senior officer Shri V.K. Sharma informed him
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 11/14/2024
5:45:09 PM
15 CRA-4282-2024
that the proceedings of NDPS case are to be carried out and, therefore, he
should remain ready. A search authorisation was issued vide Ex.P/54 by Shri
V.K. Sharma. On the same day in pursuant to the search warrant they had
gone to the spot. The search warrant was duly signed by panchas. In pursuant
to the search warrant, they conducted the search and in the premises the
appellant and the other accused persons were found. The accused persons
were informed in the presence of gazetted officer PW-18 Vijay Kumar
Sharma that whether they want to be searched by gazetted officer, they stated
that they are ready to get search of the premises in the presence of gazetted
officer. In this regard Ex.P/55 was executed which bears the signature of the
present appellant and the signatures of the other panchas. The testimony of
PW-21 Navin Soni is duly supported by PW-18 Vijay Kumar Sharma,
Gaurav Tiwari (PW-20). Panch witness Kushal Rege (PW-14) has also
supported the prosecution case. From the testimony of these witnesses, it is
proved beyond doubt that the contraband was seized from the factory
premises in the presence of the appellant along with the other accused
persons. The contention of counsel for the appellant that the provisions of
Section 50 has not been followed cannot be accepted. In the case of S.K.
Raju alias Abdul Haque alias Jagga vs. State of West Bengal (2018) 9 SCC
708, the Apex Court after referring the judgment in the case of State of
Punjab vs. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 and also the judgment in the case
o f State of Rajasthan vs. Parmanand (2014) 5 SCC 345 held that strict
compliance with Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act applies only in the case of a
search of a person and not in the case where the contraband was recovered
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 11/14/2024
5:45:09 PM
16 CRA-4282-2024
from bag carried by accused.
19. In the case of Kallu Khan vs. State of Rajasthan (2021) 19 SCC
197, the Apex Court held that the recovery of contraband from polythene bag
beneath the seat of unnumbered motorcycle was not searched of the search
of a person and, therefore, compliance of Section 50 not attracted. In a recent
judgment decided on 20.08.2024 by the Supreme Court in the case of State
of Kerala vs. Prabhu, Criminal Appeal No.3434/2024 referring to the
judgment passed in the case of Baldev Singh (supra) and also State of MP vs.
Pawan Kumar (2005) 4 SCC 350 held that the position of law on the question
regarding the requirement of compliance with Section 50 of NDPS Act is no
more res integra and in an unambiguous term held that if the recovery was
not from the person but from a bag carried by him, the procedural formalities
prescribed under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was not required to be
complied with. Thus, in the present case the recovery of contraband is not
from the person, but the search and recovery was conducted of the premises
of factory which was found to be in possession of the present appellant and
the other convicts, thus the trial Court has rightly held that there is no non-
compliance of section 50 and also section 41 of NDPS Act.
20. The order of suspension of some other cases would not render any
assistance because they do not lay down any law. Further contention of
section 32B of NDPS Act that the trial Court ought to have not awarded
sentence more than minimum sentence sans merit. Because section 32B of
NDPS Act is not exhaustive and it does not take away the discretion of the
Court to award higher sentence than the minimum sentence. The other
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 11/14/2024
5:45:09 PM
17 CRA-4282-2024
submission of the counsel for the appellant that the conviction is based on
her statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act only which is not
admissible in the evidence. He relied on the judgment passed by the Apex
Court in the case of Toofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC
Page 1. In the subsequent judgment in the case of Union of India vs.
Khaliludin CA 1841-1842/2022, the Apex Court held that despite the
judgment passed in the case of Tofan Singh (supra), the bail applications can
be rejected on the basis of statement of co-accused under section 67.
However, in the present case, the conviction is not based only on the
statement of section 67, but the prosecution has also proved its case beyond
doubt by the testimony of prosecution witnesses PW-15 Raghvendra Gaur,
PW-18 Vijay Kumar, PW-20 Gaurav Tiwary, PW-21 Navin Soni and CCTV
footage.
21. The trial Court has recorded reasons for awarding higher sentence
than the minimum sentence prescribed under section 32B. In the present case
from the total quantity of contraband “Fentanyl” is almost 11 Kgs. whereas
the commercial quantity of the said contraband is only 0.1 gram. The
contraband is highly harmful and dangerous which can affect the entire
society.
2 2 . For the above reasons, we do not find any merit on this ground
also. Though the appellant has been acquitted in certain offences, but he has
been convicted under section 21(C) r/w section 29, 23(C) and 8(C) of NDPS
Act. The ingredients of abetment and criminal conspiracy has been
established by the prosecution. As the appellant was found to be in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 11/14/2024
5:45:09 PM
18 CRA-4282-2024
possession of a factory along with the other co-convicts and he was seen
fetching criminal conspiracy in the CCTV footage. In the case of Omprakash
Sahni vs. Jai Shankar Chaudhary (2023) 6 SCC 123, the Apex Court held in
para 33 that the appellate Court should not re-appreciate the evidence at the
stage of section 389 CRPC and try to pickup few lacunas or loopholes here
or there in the case of the prosecution.
23. In light of the aforesaid assimilation of facts, evidence and the law
laid down in the various judgments, we do not find any case for grant of
suspension of jail sentence. The application (IA No.16258/2024) is
dismissed.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) (GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
soumya
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 11/14/2024
5:45:09 PM