Manipur High Court: In a Revision Petition filed under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) and Section 36-B of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) challenging the discharge order of accused involved in a transnational drug trafficking syndicate, a single-judge bench of A. Guneshwar Sharma, J., set aside the discharge order and remanded back the case to the Special court to frame charges under Sections 22(c), 29, 60(3) of the NDPS Act and Section 468 of the IPC against the accused and proceed with the trial.
Factual Matrix
In the instant matter, the Thoubal District Police intercepted a vehicle and recovered 40,000 suspected WY tablets on 24-08-2019, leading to the arrest of accused 1. Based on his disclosure, international drug smuggler-accused 2 was arrested at Imphal International Airport with various currencies and documents. Further arrests were made, including accused No. 3 to 9. The investigation revealed the involvement of the accused in a transnational drug trafficking syndicate. They transported narcotic substances across multiple states in India and into Bangladesh
A case was registered under Sections 22(c), 29 and 60(3) of the NDPS Act and Section 468 of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The Special Judge (NDPS), Thoubal discharged the accused, vide order dated 20-01-2021, citing that the place of occurrence was shifted from IVR of Phoudel Kairembi Mathak Leikai to Thoubal Police Station, which is illegal and non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Special Judge, the petitioners/State filed a Revision Petition under Section 397 CrPC and Section 36-B NDPS Act challenging the discharge order.
Parties’ Contentions
The State argued that the offence was continuous, involving multiple locations and Section 178 of the CrPC allows for trial in any jurisdiction where the offence occurred. It was contended that Sections 41 and 42 of the NDPS Act are not applicable as there was no prior information; Section 43 applies as the contraband was seized from a public place. It was argued that the trial court erred in interpreting the provisions of the NDPS Act and CrPC.
The respondents-accused argued that the investigation was flawed due to non-compliance with Sections 41, 42, and 50 of the NDPS Act. It was contended that the seized contraband cannot be treated as primary evidence due to non-compliance with Section 52-A of the NDPS Act. They maintained that changing the place of occurrence undermined the prosecution’s case. It was contended that there was no material evidence linking the respondent to a conspiracy under Section 29 of the NDPS Act.
The State further contended that the plea of non-compliance with Section 52A cannot be raised for the first time in the revision petition. It was argued that the revision petition should be confined to the grounds and materials considered by the trial court. It was contended that whether the mandatory statutory provisions were complied with needs to be examined during the trial.
Court’s Analysis
Jurisdiction
The Court noted that under Sections 177 and 178 of CrPC, the Special Court (NDPS), Thoubal has jurisdiction as the IVR at Phoudel and the campus of Thoubal Police Station are within its territorial limits. The Court stated that the offence of possession and transportation of narcotic substances is a continuing offence and can be tried by the court with jurisdiction over any part of the offence. The Court held that the Special Court (NDPS), Thoubal erred in concluding that the campus of Thoubal PS is not a place of occurrence.
Compliance with NDPS Act
The Court noted that Sections 41 and 42 of the NDPS Act require prior information about the possession of narcotics to be recorded and informed to a higher officer but the NDPS provisions will not be applicable in the present case as the contrabands were detected by chance. The Court stated that Section 50 of the NDPS Act requires informing the person to be searched about their right to be searched in presence of a gazette officer and again the provision will not be applicable in the present case as it was a chance recovery. The Court noted that Section 52-A of the NDPS Act deals with inventory preparation, and the non-compliance of the provision should be examined during the trial.
Materials for Framing Charges
The Court asserted that the trial court should not indulge in a detailed inquiry at the stage of charge framing but should only ascertain whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed based on the police report and prosecution documents. The Court noted that there is sufficient material to frame charges under Sections 22(c), 29, 60(3) of the NDPS Act, and Section 468 of the IPC based on the involvement of the accused in the transportation and possession of narcotic substances, and the creation of a fake Aadhar card.
Court’s Decision
The Court set aside the Special Court (NDPS), Thoubal’s discharge order and directed the Special Court to proceed with the trial after framing charges under Sections 22(c), 29, 60(3) NDPS Act and Section 468 of the IPC against the accused persons. The Court emphasised that no opinion is expressed on the merits of the case, and the Special Court should not be influenced by the observations made in this judgment.
[State of Manipur v. Mohd. Hussain, 2024 SCC OnLine Mani 173, order dated 03-06-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. M. Devananda Addl. AG and Ms. N. Jotsna, Counsel for the Petitioners
Mr. HS. Paonam, Sr. Adv. assisted by Ms. Lekhakumari, Mr. L. Shashibhusan assisted by Ms. Kangungailui Kamei, Mr. H. Nabachandra and Mr. S. Jhaljit, Counsel for the Respondents
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
