SATYAJIT HAZARI ETC. Vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard learned counsel for both sides.

(2.) We find that the trial and the conviction proceeded on a fatal flaw that the contraband, for the possession of which the appellants had been prosecuted and convicted has itself not been produced before the Court as material object. Consequently, neither the attention of the accused was adverted to the said contraband nor the Court has had any opportunity to see the contraband which is allegedly found in the appellants' possession. Such flaw on the prosecution side is discussed in the case of Gorakh Nath Prasad v. State of Bihar (Criminal Appeal No. 2104 of 2017) : (2018 ALL SCR(Cri) 237) decided on 05.12.2017 .

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is a mention to this effect in the Malkhana Register. Shri Nikhil Goel, learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that even this Register was not produced before the Court. In any case, we find that an entry in the Malkhana Register cannot be a substitute of producing the contraband before the Court as a material object. The judgment and order passed by the High Court is, therefore, set aside.