TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 1226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed Addl. Public Prosecutor, Mizoram appearing for the State. [3] The prosecution case, in brief, may be stated as follows. [4] On 11.9.2012 at about 4 p.m, S.I. R. Lalbiaksanga, on receipt of an information, visited the District Park, Zobawk, Lunglei alongwith another police personnel (PW3) and found the appellant moving in suspicious manner. Accordingly, the said police officer, in presence of independent witnesses, (PW2) searched the appellant and found 8000 capsules of Parvon Spas in 40 boxes. Accordingly, he seized the said capsules in presence of PWs 2 and 3, took sample of the same and submitted report of seizure to the O.C. Lunglei. He also produced the appellant along with the seized article and submitted the FIR (Exhibit P- 1). On receipt of the FIR, the concerned superior officer handed over the case to the Officer-in-Charge, Lunglei Police Station and the Officer-in- Charge of the police station endorsed the case to PW4 i.e. S.I. C. Lalthangliana for investigation. The I.O. arrested the appellant, recorded the statement of the informant and sent sample of the seized article to the Joint Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Mualpui for examination. The Forensic Sc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ency did not take the weight of the seized article and as such it cannot be held that the appellant was found in possession of commercial of the contraband item. Referring to the Forensic Science Laboratory report(FSL), the learned Amicus Curiae has argued that FSL report also does not indicate that the weight of the seized article was taken by using any scientific instrument. Laying stress to the word about used in the FSL report, with regard to the weight, the learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that the term about used in respect of the weight indicates that no weight was taken in respect of the seized item. In support of his contention, the learned Amicus Curiae has relied upon the decisions held in the case of Megha Singh vs- State of Haryana reported in (1996) 11 SCC 709 and State By Inspector of Police, Narcotic Intelligence Bureau, Madurai vs- Rajangam reported in (2010) 15 SCC 369. In view of the above discrepancies and the principles laid down in the above cited cases, the learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that impugned conviction and senctence cannot be maintained and as such the appellant is entitled to be acquitted. [8] Controverting the argument, advance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... zure list and produced the seized item and the accused person before the O.C. He has exhibited the FIR lodged by him as Exhibit -1 and the seizure list as Exhibit-P1. Supporting the evidence of PW1, PW2 stated that he saw police chasing the appellant near the District Park, Zobawk and that police had recovered Parvon Spas capsules from the arrested person. He further stated that the said items were seized and samples were also taken by the Police Officer in his presence. PW3 is another police personnel, who accompanied PW-1. He stated that, on 11.9.2012, at about 1:00 p.m, when he was proceeding with PW-1 the accused was found walking through the road in a suspicious manner and apprehending him, 8000 capsules of Parvon Spas were seized from his possession by the PW-1, in his presence. He also stated that after preparing the seizure memo, the samples were taken at the place of occurrence. According to this witness, the accused was found walking through the road, but according to PW1, the accused person was found near the District Park. The PW1 who had arrested the accused person along with the seized article did not state that the accused person was found walking through the road. P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re proceeding. The Supreme Court referred to the following observation made in the case of Megha Singh(supra) as under:- 4 .We have also noted another disturbing feature in this case. PW3, Siri Chand, Head Constable arrested the accused and on search being conducted by him a pistol and the cartridges were recovered from the accused. It was on his complaint a formal first information report was lodged and the case was initiated. He being complainant should not have proceeded with the investigation of the case. But it appears to us that he was not only the complainant in the case but he carried on with the investigation and examined witnesses under Section 161 CrPC. Such practice, to say the least, should not be resorted to so that there may not be any occasion to suspect fair and impartial investigation. 10. The ratio of Megha case has been folowed by other cases. In another case in Balasundaran V. State,[(1999 113ELT)MAD0] in para 16, the Madraas High Court took the same view. The relevant portion reads as under: 16. Learned counsel for the appellants also stated that PW5 being the Inspector of Police who was present at the time of search and he was the investigating offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
