9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Conviction u/s 27 (a) (i) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, enhancement of sentence by High Court, interpretation of legal provisions u/s 27 and u/s 18A read with section 28.
In this case, the appellant was convicted u/s 27 (a) (i) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200. The High Court modified the sentence from imprisonment till the rising of the Court to one year of rigorous imprisonment. The appellant was found in possession of 17,000 white tablets at a railway station, leading to the charges. The appellant pleaded guilty but argued that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of section 27. The Court analyzed the legal provisions and held that mere possession of the tablets does not constitute an offense u/s 27 without evidence of manufacturing, selling, or stocking for sale. The conviction u/s 27 (a) (i) was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of this charge. Regarding the second charge, the appellant's refusal to disclose the source of the tablets fell within the scope of section 28, which mandates disclosure upon request. The appellant's act of non-disclosure warranted punishment u/s 28, with a maximum sentence of one year. The Court considered the appellant's confession, young age, and family background in deciding the sentence. The conviction u/s 28 was upheld, but the sentence was reduced to the time already served. The fine of Rs. 200 was maintained under section 28, not u/s 27 (a) (i). The appellant was ordered to pay the fine within a month, and the appeal was allowed in part, resulting in the appellant's immediate release.
|
