9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The judgment involves an appeal against the conviction of the appellants under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Issue 1: Conviction under Sections 23 and 20(b)(2) of the Act The appellants were convicted under Section 23 and Section 20(b)(2) of the Act, respectively, and sentenced to imprisonment and fines. The arrests and recoveries of contraband were made on the same day, leading to a joint trial and common judgment. Issue 2: Prosecution's Case and Evidence The prosecution's case detailed the arrests, recoveries, and subsequent legal proceedings. Witnesses, including police officers and an independent witness, provided testimonies regarding the events. The defense claimed false implication due to enmity. Issue 3: Witness Testimonies and Cross-Examinations Witness testimonies, including those of an independent witness and police personnel, were scrutinized. Discrepancies in statements, handling of contraband articles, and compliance with legal procedures were highlighted. Issue 4: Lack of Link Evidence and Compliance The absence of link evidence regarding the custody and handling of seized contraband articles raised doubts. Non-compliance with legal provisions, such as Section 57 of the Act, regarding reporting of arrests and seizures, was noted. Issue 5: Reliance on Police Testimonies The reliance on the sole testimony of a police witness for conviction was challenged. Precedents emphasizing the need for corroboration and discrepancies in the recovery process were cited to question the validity of the conviction. Issue 6: Compliance with Legal Provisions The failure to comply with Section 57 of the Act regarding reporting requirements was highlighted. Non-compliance was deemed to impact the evidence and the overall case merits. Judgment Outcome: The appeals were successful, leading to the setting aside of the convictions and sentences imposed on the appellants. The lack of corroborative evidence, discrepancies in testimonies, and non-compliance with legal provisions contributed to the decision. Bail bonds were canceled, and sureties were discharged.
|
