Title: Suresh Trivedi v/s Union of India
Court: In the High Court of Allahabad
Case no: Crl. Appeal no. 1918 of 2019
Decided on: April 10, 2023
Coram: Before Brij Raj Singh, J.
Introduction
The Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant consequent to the judgment dated 5th July 2019 passed by the session court of Lucknow under sections 8(c)/20(b)(ii)(c) and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, convicting and sentencing the appellant to 15 years of imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,50,000.
Brief Facts
The complainant received information on 17th August 2014 regarding a White Swift Dezire Car being used for smuggling a commercial quantity of contraband charas. A team of officers from the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) acted upon this information under Section 42 of the NDPS Act. They proceeded to Shaheed Path on the Faizabad Road and intercepted the said Swift Car. Upon confrontation, the driver identified himself as Suresh Trivedi, while another person named himself Lakshman Sharma. Upon inquiry, the driver mentioned a concealed cavity at the back seat of the car where charas was hidden.
Following the procedure under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, notice was given to Suresh Trivedi and Lakshman Sharma, leading to the discovery of 111 packs of charas weighing 107 kg in the polythene cover. The market value of the recovered charas was assessed at Rs. 1,07,00,000. Samples were sent for FSL examination to Delhi, confirming the substance as charas. Subsequently, both accused were booked under Sections 8(c)/20(b)(1)(C)/25 of the NDPS Act, and the case was registered at Police Station DRI, Lucknow. Following arguments, fresh charges were framed on 4th July 2019, resulting in the session court of Lucknow convicting the appellant for 15 years.
The learned counsel for the appellant raised a significant concern regarding the absence of legal assistance provided during the trial. It was highlighted that several proceedings took place in the absence of the appellant’s counsel. The appellant’s representative left the proceedings, and despite this, the prosecution continued with the examination-in-chief of witnesses, leading to objections. The absence of an amicus curiae for the appellant was cited as a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ramanand v. State of U.P., the appellant’s counsel emphasized the provisions of Article 39-A and Section 304 CrPC, stressing the need for legal aid and fair representation.
The prosecution defended the lower court’s judgment. Upon hearing both sides, the Court observed that the appellant was inadequately represented during crucial stages of the trial. Despite the co-accused being represented through an amicus curiae, no counsel represented the appellant during the examination of witnesses.
The Court referred to the Ramanand case and concluded that the trial was fatally flawed due to the lack of representation for the appellant during critical stages, violating Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Additionally, it noted that the appellant had been in jail since 18th August 2014, nearly completing the minimum sentence of ten years without a fair trial.
Question
- Does the failure to provide an amicus curiae for the appellant violate Article 21 of the Constitution of India?
- Does the re-framing of charges after the argument under Section 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 vitiate the trial?
Court Decision and Analysis
The absence of an amicus curiae for the appellant during the examination of witnesses and the proceedings under Section 313 CrPC rendered the trial fatal, breaching Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The second framing of charges under Section 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 lacked evidence on record, and the judgment delivered one day after this action implies a flawed trial.
Considering the substantial time the appellant has spent in jail nearing completion of the minimum sentence, the Court found it inappropriate to remand the case for a fresh trial. Therefore, the Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to the minimum term of ten years, along with a fine of Rs. one lakh under Sections 8(c)/20(b)(1)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Next time I read a blog, I hope that it won’t fail me as much as this one I mean, I know it was my choice to read, however I truly believed you would probably have something useful to talk about All I hear is a bunch of whining about something you could possibly fix if you weren’t too busy searching for attention
Truly appreciate your well-written posts. I have certainly picked up valuable insights from your page. Here is mine Article World about SEO. Feel free to visit soon.