9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 1324X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further undergo simple imprisonment for one year. The facts giving rise to the conviction and sentence of the appellants have been set out in detail by the High Court in the order under appeal hence need not be detailed over again except to the extent it is absolutely necessary to do so. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that a certain secret information was received by Mr. K.C Chudasma, Inspector, Anti-Terrorist Squad which was passed on to Mr. P.S.Tomar, Zonal Director, Narcotics Control Bureau, Ahmedabad. The information suggested that Accused No.2 Mr. Hemaram Chaudhary was the kingpin of a syndicate involved in smuggling and interstate trafficking of narcotic substances. Accused No.3-Shri Derajram Jat was the man allegedly carrying out the operations at the instance of the said Mr. Hemaram Chaudhary. The information so received was used to intercept and search a truck bearing registration number RJ-04-G-1305 on 29thJune, 2001 at Lal Bahadur Shashtri Bridge, Pirana area in the city of Ahmedabad while the same was returning from Bharuch. The truck was driven by accused no.4-Ashuram Durgaram Choudhary while accused no.3-Derajram Jat was accompanying him. The search of the tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Criminal Appeal No.1574 of 2009 and the written submissions filed by him the truck driven by the said appellant was no doubt intercepted and searched on 29th June, 2001 but nothing incriminating was found even when the truck was unloaded and searched thoroughly and all the relevant papers such as insurance, permit etc. recovered from the driver's cabin. A bag was no doubt recovered from under the seat on which the accused No.3-Derajram Jat was sitting who admitted before the raiding party that the same belonged to him. Written submissions further state that four packets of heroin were found from the said bag eventually leading to the filing of the charge-sheet against the said accused no.3- Derajram Jat including appellant-Ashuram Durgaram Chaudhary-accused no.4 the driver of the truck. It is contended that appellant-Ashuram Durgaram Chaudhary has been falsely implicated as he had no knowledge of the fact that accused no.3-Derajram Jat was carrying any contraband in his bag which the latter had kept under his seat. Para 3 of the written submissions filed on behalf of the appellant- Ashuram Durgaram Chaudhary reads as under: "3. That the petitioner herein has been falsely implica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ruck in which accused no.3-Derajram Jat and accused no.4-Ashuram Durgaram Chaudhary were traveling. All the accused persons had made statements revealing that the buyer of the consignment was one Shri Iqbal Moosa Patelaccused no.1 whom they could not contact and, therefore, they were returning back to Rajasthan. It was also stated that a consignment of 4 kgs. was earlier supplied to accused no.1-Iqbal Moosa Patel sometime around mid March 2001 which led the NCB to raid the house of accused no. 1-Iqbal Moosa Patel. It was further submitted that pursuant to the said information the house of appellant-accused no.1-Iqbal Moosa Patel was raided on 7th July, 2001 that led to the seizure of 3 kgs. of heroin and a cash of Rs. 1,17,500/- It was submitted that special leave petition (Crl.) No.8029 of 2008 filed against the very same judgment by accused no.2-Hemaram Chaudhary having been dismissed by this Court, there was no reason for this Court to take a different view, in the present appeals. 9. We have given our careful consideration to the submissions made at the bar including those made in writing. The Trial Court as also the High Court have concurrently come to the conclusion that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r opinion, no error or perversity in the view taken by the Trial Court or the High Court for that matter to warrant our interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The prosecution had on the depositions of the witnesses examined by it and the documents produced at the trial, established that a raid based on the secret information received by the Anti- Terrorist Squad which was passed on to the Narcotic Control Bureau indeed conducted and truck bearing registration number RJ-04-G-1305 intercepted and searched. In the course of the said search 3.056 kgs. of heroin was recovered from the possession of accused no.4-Ashuram Durgaram Chaudhary who was driving the truck and accused no.3-Derajram Jat accompanying him. It is noteworthy that the fact that the truck was intercepted and searched by the authorities was not disputed by appellant-Ashuram Durgaram Chaudhary the driver of the said truck nor is it disputed that 3.056 kgs. of heroin was recovered from the bag that was kept under the seat on which accused no.3-Derajram Jat traveling with him in the truck was sitting. Para 3 of the written submissions which we have extracted earlier simply suggests that the appellant-A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce is so strong against a man as to leave only a remote possibility in his favour which can be dismissed with sentence 'of course, it is possible but not in the least probable,' the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt.... It is true that under our existing jurisprudence in a criminal matter, we have to proceed with presumption of innocence, but at the same time, that presumption is to be judged on the basis of conceptions of a reasonable prudent man. Smelling doubts for the sake of giving benefit of doubt is not the law of the land." 14. Reference may also be made to the decision of this Court in Sucha Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab (2003) 7 SCC 643 where this Court has reiterated the principle in the following words: ".......Exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts or lingering suspicion and thereby destroy social defence. Justice cannot be made sterile on the plea that it is better to let a hundred guilty escape than punish an innocent. Letting the guilty escape is not doing justice according to law. (See Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh AIR 1990 SC 209). Prosecution is not required to meet any and every hypothesis put forward b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
