9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Conviction under Section 20(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act and Section 66(1)(b) and 83 of the Bombay Prohibition Act for possession of charas without license or permit.
Summary: 1. The appellants were convicted under relevant sections for possessing charas without authorization. Various contentions were raised regarding nonobservance of mandatory requirements, but the trial Court found them unsubstantiated. Despite some inconsistencies in evidence, the trial Court deemed the prosecution evidence reliable, including the timing of calling Panch witnesses. 2. The High Court also dismissed the appeal summarily, finding no merit in the appellants' contentions. The appellants argued they were not informed of their rights under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, but the Court ruled that since the charas was found in a bag on the scooter, not on their person, the search was legal. 3. The prosecution established the identity of the seized articles, refuting claims of discrepancies in seals. The Court clarified that a minor discrepancy in seals did not undermine the evidence's integrity, as the seals ultimately matched. The defense's argument of enmity with another individual leading to false implication was also dismissed for lack of evidence. 4. The appeal was ultimately dismissed as the Court found no substance in the appellants' arguments, upholding their conviction under the relevant sections of the NDPS Act and the Bombay Prohibition Act.
|
