Navin Sinha JUDGMENT
Navin Sinha, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The Appellant assails his conviction Under Section 8C read with Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called as "the NDPS Act") for recovery of 48 Kgs 200 gms. cannabis (ganja), sentencing him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment with a default stipulation.
3. The Appellant was held to be the owner of the House in question from which the ganja was recovered, relying upon the voters list of 2008 rejecting his defence that he had sold the house to co-accused Gokul Dangi on 12.06.2009. Gokul Dangi has been acquitted in trial.
4. Shri Puneet Jain, learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the conviction based on a mere presumption of ownership of the house, without any finding of conscious possession was unsustainable. Reliance was placed on Gopal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, MANU/SC/1254/2001 : (2002) 9 SCC 595. The police had received information that Gokul Dangi had kept contraband in his house. The Appellant and Ghasiram, the village chowkidar had identified the house of the Accused to the police when it came to the village for search and seizure. Both of them were witness to the panchnama for breaking open the lock to the house when the contraband was recovered. It stands to reason why the Appellant would take the police to his own house, have the lock broken to recover the contraband and implicate himself. Ghasiram and P.W. 11, were both witnesses to the sale agreement dated 12.06.2009, Exhibit P-28 executed by the Appellant in favour of Gokul Dangi. It was produced before the police by the Appellant the very next day but was never investigated, Ghasiram has not been examined for no explicable reasons. The entries in the village panchayat records with regard to ownership of the house had not been investigated. The Appellant was subsequently made an Accused during investigation because of the failure of the police to investigate properly.
5. Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, learned Addl. Advocate General for the State, submitted that P.W. 11 had denied being a witness to the sale agreement alleging that his thumb impression had been impersonated. The deed was therefore rightly held to be a forged and fabricated document confirmed by the voter list entry of 2008 that the house belonged to the Appellant. The village panchayat records also mentioned the ownership of the Appellant.
6. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties and have carefully perused the evidence on record also. P.W. 6, the first investigation officer deposed that secret information had been received of Gokul Dangi having stored contraband in his house. The Appellant and Ghasiram along with other villagers identified the house as belonging to Gokul Dangi on 11.08.2009 leading to recovery after the lock was broken open. The witness admi........