9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (8) TMI 622 - HC - Indian LawsConviction under Sections 20(ii)(c) of NDPS Act - recovery of commercial quantity of cannabis - Held that - The house from where the seized cannabis was recovered belonged to the accused appellant. The plea taken by the appellant that his house was not searched does not create the possibility of an alternate doubt strong enough to say the alternate view in favour of the accused appellant is as nearly reasonably probable as that against him. Thus, the plea that instead of the house of the accused appellant some other house was searched appears to be a plea without any substance, for if the accused appellant is a resident of the same village he could have easily adduced evidence to probabilise his plea. A mere suggestion to prosecution witnesses that the house from where the seized cannabis was recovered does not belong to him cannot be accepted to be a sufficient compliance of probabilising the plea of lack of possession when it was within the reach and means of the appellant to show that even though he is a resident of Nagaypam, Jamunamukh, his house is situated at a different location in that village and is different from the one in which the search was conducted and the contraband was recovered. Thus no interference with the judgment and order of the learned Trial Court is called for.
Issues Involved:
1. Possession and recovery of seized Ganja. 2. Legal interpretation of "possession" under the NDPS Act. 3. Compliance with Section 41(2) of the NDPS Act. 4. Reliability of prosecution witnesses and evidence. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Possession and Recovery of Seized Ganja: The main issue argued by the defense was whether the accused-appellant was in possession of the seized Ganja and if it was recovered from his house. The defense contended that the Ganja was not recovered from the accused-appellant's house, and the electoral roll bearing his name found at the site could not conclusively establish that it was his house. The prosecution, however, presented evidence that the Ganja was indeed recovered from the house of the accused-appellant, and the trial court found this evidence sufficient to convict the accused under Section 20(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act. 2. Legal Interpretation of "Possession" under the NDPS Act: The court referred to the case of Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan, emphasizing that the concept of possession under the NDPS Act includes both physical control and custody, and can be understood in various contexts. The court noted that the term "possession" should be interpreted flexibly to suit the purpose of the NDPS Act, which aims to curb illegal drug activities. 3. Compliance with Section 41(2) of the NDPS Act: The court examined whether the raid and search conducted by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) complied with Section 41(2) of the NDPS Act. The section empowers certain officers to conduct searches and arrests based on personal knowledge or written information. The court found that the DRI officials acted within their powers under this section, as they had specific information about the accused-appellant's involvement in contraband activities. The defense did not challenge the authenticity of the information or the procedures followed by the DRI officials. 4. Reliability of Prosecution Witnesses and Evidence: The court evaluated the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, noting that the defense did not dispute the recovery of Ganja from the house in question but argued that it was not the accused-appellant's house. The court found the prosecution witnesses' testimonies credible and consistent, establishing that the house from which the Ganja was recovered belonged to the accused-appellant. The court also highlighted that the defense failed to provide any evidence to support their claim that the house did not belong to the accused-appellant. Conclusion: The court concluded that the prosecution had successfully established the accused-appellant's possession of the seized Ganja beyond a reasonable doubt. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court were upheld. The court emphasized that the defense's arguments did not create a reasonable doubt about the accused-appellant's guilt, and the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to support the conviction.
|
