The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, in its judgment dated August 30, 2024, upheld the conviction and sentence of Smt. Manju under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, rejecting the appellant’s contentions regarding procedural lapses and inconsistencies in witness testimonies. The judgment was delivered by Justice Shamim Ahmed.
Case Background:
The appeal, Criminal Appeal No. 2421 of 2006, was filed by Smt. Manju against the State of Uttar Pradesh, challenging her conviction and sentence by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Lucknow, in Session Trial No. 246A of 1999, arising out of Crime Number 362 of 1999. The appellant was convicted under Sections 8C/21 of the NDPS Act and sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone, along with a fine of ₹500.
Facts of the Case:
According to the prosecution, the appellant, Smt. Manju, was apprehended near the house of a person named Kanhaiya in Lucknow with possession of 40 and 24 small packets (pudiyas) of smack (heroin). It was alleged that the appellant was found in possession of these illegal substances without any legal authorization. The trial court, after evaluating the evidence and the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, convicted the appellant.
Key Legal Issues Raised:
1. Materiality of Inconsistencies in Witness Testimonies:
The appellant’s counsel argued that the prosecution’s evidence was riddled with contradictions, particularly regarding the exact location of the arrest, which should have created a reasonable doubt about the appellant’s guilt. The court, however, found these inconsistencies to be minor and not substantial enough to affect the conviction.
2. Procedural Lapses Under NDPS Act:
The defence raised several points of procedural non-compliance, including:
– The failure to involve a gazetted officer during the arrest and seizure, as mandated under Section 42 of the NDPS Act.
– The failure to inform the appellant of her right to be searched in the presence of a gazetted officer or magistrate under Section 50.
– The absence of independent witnesses during the arrest in a densely populated area.
– The lack of immediate reporting of the incident to higher authorities.
– The failure to properly document the seizure and recovery process.
3. Admissibility of Evidence:
The defence argued that the lack of compliance with procedural safeguards rendered the search and seizure illegal, making the evidence inadmissible. They also highlighted the prosecution’s failure to produce key witnesses, such as the lady officer who searched the female appellant, and questioned the integrity of the chain of custody and forensic evidence.
Court’s Observations and Decision:
Justice Shamim Ahmed, while addressing the issues raised, observed:
– On the Materiality of Inconsistencies: “Minor discrepancies in witness testimonies are not uncommon and do not necessarily discredit the entire prosecution case, especially when the testimonies are otherwise consistent and corroborated by other evidence.” The court found that the core fact of possession of heroin remained unshaken despite the minor inconsistencies.
– On Procedural Lapses: The court acknowledged certain procedural lapses, such as the failure to involve a gazetted officer and the absence of independent witnesses, but ruled that these lapses did not outweigh the evidence of possession. “The failure to weigh the seized substance at the recovery site raises concerns, but it does not undermine the fact that the substance was indeed narcotic in nature.”
– On the Appropriateness of the Sentence: Considering the socio-economic background of the appellant and the small quantity of heroin, the court found the sentence of imprisonment already undergone and a fine of ₹500 to be appropriate and just.
After reviewing the evidence, legal arguments, and relevant case laws, the Allahabad High Court found no merit in the appeal. The court upheld the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court, affirming that the procedural lapses cited by the defense did not significantly affect the validity of the conviction.
The appeal was dismissed, with Justice Shamim Ahmed stating that “the trial court’s findings were based on a proper appreciation of the evidence, and there were no legal or factual errors that warrant interference by this Court.”
Case Details:
– Case Title: Smt. Manju vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
– Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 2421 of 2006
– Bench: Justice Shamim Ahmed
– Counsel for Appellant: Raj Narayan Rastogi
– Counsel for Respondent: Government Advocate
– Charges: Conviction under Sections 8(c) and 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985
