MOHAMMED KHALID Vs. STATE OF TELENGANA.

Advertisements

Spread the love

Post Views: 188

CITATION	2024 SSC ONLINE SC 213
DATE OF JUDGEMENT	01-03-2024
COURT	SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
APPELLANT	MOHAMMED KHALID
RESPONDENT	STATE OF TELENGANA
BENCH	J. BR GAVAI AND J. SANDEEP MEHTA

INTRODUCTION

In the aforementioned case, the appellants Mohammed Khalid, S.A. Shafiullah, Md. Afsar, and Md. Ishaq Ansari (expired) were convicted of a crime punishable under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (referred to as the “NDPS Act”). Each of them was sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- when they failed to comply, at which point they were subjected to six months of simple imprisonment. The Act’s Section 8(c) forbids the sale, use, or acquisition of any sort of narcotic drug. On the other hand, section 20(b) of the law addresses cannabis and imposes severe jail sentences of up to a year, based upon the amount of cannabis found.

The appellants filed a criminal appeal in the Supreme Court because they refused to accept the ruling of the High Court in Hyderabad, Telangana, which was rendered on November 10, 2022. In essence, the High Court of Telangana dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 594 of 2011 and upheld the earlier ruling made by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge in Hyderabad. Mohammed Ishaq Ansari passed away while the High Court was considering his appeal, hence the proceedings pertaining to him were suspended.

FACTS OF THE CASE

On May 8, 2009, Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, Inspector of Police, West Zone Task Force, states that he obtained reliable information about two people driving a “Toyota Qualis” from Sangareddy to Hyderabad, where they were transporting Ganja (marijuana)
Inspector Rao informed his superior officials of the source information and, with permission, arranged for the attendance of two panchas, Shareef Shah and Mithun Jana, to act as associate panchas. He then led his team to the location. At 3 p.m., Inspector Rao and the team members stopped a Toyota Qualis car with the license plate AP 09 AL 6323 close to Galaxy Theatre.
According to reports, S.A. Shafiullah and Mohd. Ishaq Ansari was found driving the car. A notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was served to them by Inspector Rao. Section 50 of NDPS Act says that any officer duly authorized under section 42 who is about to search a person in accordance with section 41, section 42, or section 43 shall, if the person so requests, take the person right away to the closest Magistrate or Gazette Officer of any department specified in section 42.
A Gazetted Officer, Inspector V. Shyam Babu, was called to the scene at the accused’s request to participate in the proceedings. It is claimed that three bundles of Ganja, weighing around 80 kg, that were discovered lying in the car were taken in front of Inspector Rao and the panchas. V. Shyam Babu, who also took part in the search procedures, served the accused with another notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act.
Both accused were taken into custody and questioned right away. The remaining muddamal Ganja had been seized after three samples totalling around 50 grams were taken from each bundle of contraband. The accused received one portion of the sample.
A complaint was filed at the Golkonda Police Station based on these processes, and an inquiry was started and Criminal Case No. 181 of 2009 was launched. A portion of the sample taken from the found contraband was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), which returned a report stating that the sample contained Ganja, as that term is defined under Section 2(b) of the NDPS Act. Investigating Officer K. Chandrasekhar Reddy detained the accused Mohd. Khalid and Mohd. Afsar after acting upon the confession and questioning of accused who got caught with the Ganja previously i.e. Mohd. Ishaq Ansari and S.A. Shafiullah.

ISSUES RAISED

In the criminal appeal that the appellants filed, the issue that was brought before the Supreme Court was whether the convictions that the accused received under Section 8(c) and Section 20(b) (ii) (c) were lawful.
Another issue was if the evidence were thoroughly examined in accordance with the Indian Evidence Act of 1872?
Also, Are the compliances with section 52A of the NDPS Act being appropriately prosecuted or not? The NDPS Act’s Section 52A addresses what to do with psychotropic and narcotic drug seizures. The Central Government may designate substances under this provision that, because of their hazardous nature, need to be disposed of right away.

CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT

The following arguments were made by learned counsel on the behalf of S.A. Shafiullah to challenge the appealed verdict and get the accused person released.

That the search and seizure procedures are tainted and called into question because the independent panch witnesses connected to the search and seizure were not questioned in court.
It is acknowledged that three packets containing green chilies were also found with illegal Ganja. the seizure officer made no attempt to separate the chilies from the purported contraband.
That because no sample method was carried out in front of the magistrate, the prosecution failed to assure conformity with Section 52A of the NDPS Act.
That Mr. Rao, the seizure officer, asserts to have taken three samples of Ganja total from each bundle and given the accused a portion of the sample. Upon receiving the articles at the FSL, three separate sample packages were discovered, and testing revealed the presence of “cannabis sativa.” As a result, it was claimed that only two samples were still in the possession of the investigating officer, raising serious concerns about the integrity of the samples that Inspector Rao had taken at the time of the seizure.
Thus, given the major flaws in the sampling technique, the learned counsel concludes that the FSL report is either legally honest or not.

CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDANT

Consequently, the State’s learned counsel fiercely and passionately disagreed with the arguments made by the appellants’ learned counsel. As a result, he argued, this Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution cautiously, which states that the Supreme Court may, at its discretion, provide special permission to appeal from any judgment, decree, resolution, sentence, or order rendered by any court or tribunal operating within the borders of India in any cause or matter. To not interfere with the concurrent findings of facts that the trial Court and the High Court recorded to convict the appellants and uphold their conviction. So, he pleaded with the Court to reject the appeal.

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court said, it is common knowledge that an accused person’s confession captured on camera by a law enforcement official is inadmissible as evidence because of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872, which states, a confession given to a police officer cannot be used against the person who is being accused of any crime. Even though there was not a single piece of evidence in the case that could have led the trial court or the high court to find Mohd. Khalid and Mohd. Afsar guilty, they were nonetheless found guilty in a purely mechanical fashion. Additionally, the judge declared: “The prosecution has utterly failed to establish the accused’s guilt. The contradicting and very unimpressive testimony provided by the police witnesses is confusing. According to the trial court’s record and the High Court’s confirmation, the accused appellants’ convictions are unlawful and extremely twisted.

As a result, the High Court’s decision from November 10, 2022, which upheld the trial court’s decision to find the accused appellants guilty and sentence them to prison under Section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act, is therefore revoked and set aside. All of the charges against the appellants are dropped. They will be released right away if they are not needed in any other situation.

ANALYSIS

The case was unable to stand solid due to a lack of evidence and indications that the investigating officer had not followed correct protocol. More importantly, the Supreme Court cited evidence presented by the prosecution, stating that confessions made by accused parties and recorded by the police officials are not admissible in court because they violate Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872. The ruling by the Hyderabad Metropolitan Sessions Judge and High Court has this as one of its primary drawbacks.

Despite this, the prosecution was confident that all the evidence produced at the session court and high court was reliable and sufficient to establish the guilt of the defendants. Nevertheless, following the supreme court’s exhaustive scrutiny, we learned that the prosecution has utterly failed to establish the accused person’s guilt. The police witnesses’ testimony is utterly contradictory and seem incomprehensible. According to the trial court’s record and the High Court’s affirmation of it, the accused-appellants’ conviction is unlawful and reeks of perversity.

CONCLUSION

As usual, the Supreme Court carried out its duty of interpreting the law properly so that any possibility of unfairness resulting from legal ambiguity is eliminated. The Supreme Court has thoroughly reviewed every piece of prior evidence and incident that occurred and was relevant to the case. However, we might have missed the real offenders because of the investigating officer’s carelessness in conducting a thorough investigation and gathering the necessary evidence. As per the court’s examination, the seizure officer did not even attempt to separate the chillies and weigh the contraband separately. Instead, the panchnama makes no mention of the chiles that are included with the Ganja bundles. Therefore, it is impossible to say for sure how much the recovered Ganja weighed in the end. Thus, the criminal appeal was granted by the supreme court, and the charge brought against the appellant under Section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act was overruled. All accusations against the appellants were dismissed.

REFERENCES

This Article is written by Anjali S. Raut, student at Dr. Ambedkar College of Law, Nagpur: Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.