9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Absence of visible injury on the appellant. 2. Validity of seizure and the credibility of witnesses. 3. Sufficiency of samples sent for analysis. 4. Competence of the Chemical Analyst. 5. Non-inclusion of the motorcycle owner as an accused and non-examination of a key witness. 6. Applicability of Section 27(a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Summary of Judgment: 1. Absence of Visible Injury: The appellant argued that the absence of any visible injury on his person belies the prosecution's version that he fell from his motorcycle. The court held that the lack of injury does not disprove the prosecution's case, as the appellant could have fallen without sustaining visible injuries. The evidence of PWs 4 and 7, along with the recovery of the contraband, supported the prosecution's version. 2. Validity of Seizure and Credibility of Witnesses: The appellant contended that the seizure was invalid as the witnesses were not local inhabitants and were readily willing to oblige the police. The court found that the witnesses were residents of the same area and that their testimony was credible. The court cited previous judgments to support the view that the non-locality of witnesses does not affect the legality of the proceedings. 3. Sufficiency of Samples Sent for Analysis: The appellant argued that only three samples were sent for analysis, which was insufficient. The court acknowledged that sending more representative quantities would have been preferable but held that this omission did not affect the prosecution's case. The Chemical Analyst's report (Ex. P-3) confirmed the presence of prohibited drugs. 4. Competence of the Chemical Analyst: The appellant questioned the competence of PW-6, the Chemical Analyst, who admitted not knowing the difference between narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. The court dismissed this argument, stating that the Medical Officer is not expected to know the legal definitions and that this does not undermine the validity of her analysis. 5. Non-inclusion of Motorcycle Owner and Non-examination of Key Witness: The appellant argued that the prosecution's case was weakened by not including the motorcycle owner (PW-5) as an accused and not examining Cavin, who lent the motorcycle. The court found no material to suggest that PW-5 was connected with the contraband and held that the non-examination of Cavin did not affect the prosecution's case. 6. Applicability of Section 27(a): The appellant claimed that he possessed the drugs for personal consumption and should be punished u/s 27(a) of the Act, which provides for lesser penalties. The court rejected this argument, noting that the quantities of drugs found exceeded the "small quantity" defined in the relevant notification. The court also observed that the appellant's method of concealing the drugs indicated knowledge of their illegality. Conclusion: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000, with a default clause of six months rigorous imprisonment. The court emphasized the seriousness of the drug menace and the necessity of stringent penalties to combat it.
|
