9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Appeal against acquittal under Section 20(b)(i) of the NDPS Act 1985 based on custody of seized articles and delay in sending samples.
Analysis: 1. Appeal against Acquittal: The State of Orissa challenged the acquittal of the accused under Section 20(b)(i) of the NDPS Act 1985 by a learned Single Judge of the Orissa High Court. The trial court had found the accused guilty based on the seizure of cannabis (ganja) from the accused, but the High Court acquitted the accused citing lack of established accusation. 2. Custody of Seized Articles: The main contention raised in the appeal was regarding the custody of the seized articles. The State argued that the articles were kept in safe custody and deposited in the Excise Malkhana at Cuttack as per the order of the S.D.J.M. However, the High Court found that there was no specific order for custody and, therefore, held the prosecution version as unacceptable, leading to the acquittal of the accused. 3. Delay in Sending Samples: Another issue raised in the appeal was the delay in sending the samples for chemical examination. The accused argued that the delay of four days in sending the sample to the State Drug Testing Research Laboratory was sufficient to discard the accusation. The State contended that the articles were in safe custody during this period, but the High Court found the prosecution version suspect based on the delay. 4. Judgment Analysis: The Supreme Court analyzed the evidence and found that although there was no specific order for custody when the accused was produced in court, the seized articles were clearly stated to have been produced along with the accused. The Court noted that the articles were kept in the Excise Malkhana and sent for examination, which was missed by the High Court. The Court distinguished the case of Valasla v. State of Kerala and emphasized the importance of proper custody of seized articles. Since there was no evidence to show improper custody in this case, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment and directed the restoration of the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. 5. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, directing the accused to surrender to custody if the full sentence had not been served, and upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. The Court's decision highlighted the significance of proper custody of seized articles and clarified the impact of delay in sending samples on the prosecution's case.
|
