E-Paper
SC sends notice to Manipur govt over plea by victim of drug abuse
Maibam Jogesh was a victim of a drug trafficking ring in Manipur and had a history of substance abuse before he sought help and came out of the tribulation.
On the path to recovery and rehabilitation, a victim of substance abuse has convinced the Supreme Court to seek an explanation from the Manipur government for the state’s decision not to challenge the acquittal of the prime accused in a 2018 massive drug haul case.
While the criminal law does not permit a “third party” to intervene in a criminal case, a bench headed by justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul chose to make an exception after being informed that the petitioner personally suffered an ordeal because of substance abuse during the prime of his youth and is now on a mission to protect others from the menace.
Maibam Jogesh was a victim of a drug trafficking ring in Manipur and had a history of substance abuse before he sought help and came out of the tribulation. Today, Jogesh heads the Users Society for Effective Response (USER), Manipur – a community organisation of drug abuse victims. He also runs a rehabilitation centre in the state.
Jogesh has been fighting against the acquittal of former Chandel Autonomous District Council (ADC) chairman, Lhukhosei Zou, who was named as the prime accused in the 2018 drug haul case.
On June 20, 2018, a team of the Narcotics and Affairs of Border arrested Zou along with seven others and reportedly seized 4.595 kg of heroin, 280,200 WY (World is Yours) tablets, ₹57.18 lakh in cash and another ₹95,000 in demonetised currency notes from Zou’s official residence at Lamphel in Imphal West district. The seized narcotics were estimated to be worth ₹27 crore in the international market.
Zou, who was elected as the Chandel ADC Chairman during the Congress government in the state, had later joined the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) after the regime changed in 2017. He was a member of the BJP when he was arrested.
On December 17, 2020, a trial court acquitted Zou and six others, holding that the prosecution failed to prove charges against them. Two others were convicted in the same case for possession of a commercial quantity of contraband.
Jogesh, along with another NGO working against drug abuse and a social worker, approached the Manipur high court, challenging the order but to no avail.
In May 2021, the HC dismissed Jogesh’s petition on the ground that the law does not permit private individuals like him, who are not victims or informants, to carry an appeal against the judgment of acquittal.
Emphasising that it is for the state to challenge the acquittal and that a court cannot force the state to do so, the high court further noted that allowing Jogesh and others to file an appeal would set a dangerous doctrine and would cause utter confusion in the criminal justice system.
Against this high court order, Jogesh and others moved the Supreme Court by filing a petition through advocate Satya Mitra. Last week, senior advocate Colin Gonsalves appeared for Jogesh as he was confronted with the first question about Jogesh’s locus standi (standing in law to maintain a petition).
“The position in law is clear. How can a stranger to a criminal case file an appeal against an acquittal? The law has been expanded to give victims a right. But can we say someone like the petitioner be also allowed?” the bench, which also comprised Justice MM Sundresh, asked Gonsalves.
To this, Gonsalves responded: “The petitioner is a victim of drug abuse himself. He has suffered a personal loss due to the drug menace and is now trying to save others. He may be a stranger to a particular criminal case, but he is definitely not a stranger to the dangers that drug rings and drug lords of the state pose to the children and the youth.”
Faced with a peculiar situation, justices Kaul and Sundresh had a small conversation before they decided to put the N Biren Singh government on notice.
“Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners are the sufferers of drug trafficking and have come out of it. It is their say that the respondent (Zou) is the main person involved in the drug trafficking in the state. It is submitted that the prosecution is refusing to file an appeal. In order to find out as to why the state has not filed an appeal, let notice issue initially to state,” stated the court order. The state has been asked to respond by April 29.
