9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Conviction under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
Analysis: 1. Conviction and Sentencing: The appellant was convicted under Section 18 of the Act and sentenced to 12 years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine. The prosecution's case was based on the recovery of poppy straw powder from the appellant's possession during a raid near the Flood Control Tower. The appellant denied his guilt, but the trial court convicted him based on the prosecution's evidence. 2. Evidence of Recovery: The prosecution's case relied on the testimonies of Head Constable, ASI Babu Ram, and ASI Dalbir Singh regarding the recovery of the contraband. However, certain discrepancies were noted, such as the absence of documented secret information received by ASI Dalbir Singh and the timing inconsistencies between the seizure memo, personal search memo, and the FIR registration, raising doubts about the authenticity of the recovery process. 3. Witnesses and Independent Verification: The lack of independent witnesses during the raid and seizure, despite the busy road leading to Yamuna bridge, raised concerns about the credibility of the prosecution's version. The failure to involve public witnesses and the absence of detailed documentation regarding the recovery process further weakened the prosecution's case. 4. Omission in Search Memo: Notably, the search memo did not mention the recovery of the gunny bag containing the contraband from the appellant's possession, creating doubts about the integrity of the seizure process. This omission, coupled with other inconsistencies in the evidence, cast significant doubt on the prosecution's narrative and the legality of the appellant's conviction under Section 18 of the Act. 5. Judgment: Considering the discrepancies and gaps in the prosecution's case, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the appellant's conviction and sentence under Section 18 of the Act. The appellant was ordered to be released from custody unless required in any other case, and any paid fine was to be refunded. The judgment highlighted the importance of ensuring the integrity and reliability of evidence in cases involving serious offenses like drug trafficking to uphold the principles of justice and legality.
|
