9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
Charged under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 for possession of poppy husk without valid permit or licence. Conviction under Section 15 and sentencing to undergo imprisonment and pay a fine. Compliance with Section 50 (1) of the Act. Presence of independent witnesses. Establishing possession of poppy husk. Application of presumption under Section 35 of the Act. Judgment Details: The accused were charged with possession of poppy husk without a valid permit or license. The prosecution's case stated that the accused were traveling in a truck carrying 16 bags of poppy husk, with one person fleeing the scene. The trial court convicted the appellants under Section 15 and sentenced them to imprisonment and a fine, which was confirmed by the High Court. The defense raised issues regarding compliance with Section 50 (1) of the Act and the absence of independent witnesses, which were dismissed by both courts due to the circumstances of the case. The main contention before the High Court was whether the mere presence of the appellants in the truck implied possession of the poppy husk. The High Court concluded that the appellants' close connection to the poppy husk indicated possession, supported by the presumption under Section 35 of the Act. However, the defense argued that conscious possession was not established, which was a crucial element under Section 15. The Supreme Court analyzed the evidence and found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants were in possession of the poppy husk. The courts did not adequately address the nexus between the accused and the goods, leading to a lack of evidence supporting possession. The failure to question the accused about possession during examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C was deemed significant, and the presumption under Section 35 was considered erroneous. Ultimately, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants, emphasizing the lack of evidence establishing possession and the errors in the lower courts' judgments. The appellants were ordered to be released if in custody.
|
