9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Examination of independent witnesses. 2. Compliance with Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 3. Determination of commercial and non-commercial quantity. 4. Non-production of the scooter in court. Summary: 1. Examination of Independent Witnesses: The appellant contended that the prosecution failed to examine independent witnesses despite the search and seizure occurring in a public place (a 'dhaba'). The court held that there is no absolute rule requiring independent witnesses and that the testimony of police officers can be relied upon if found reliable and trustworthy. The court cited precedents such as *State of U.P. v. Anil Singh* and *State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Sunil and Anr.*, emphasizing that the quality of evidence is more important than the quantity. 2. Compliance with Section 50 of the Act: The appellant argued non-compliance with Section 50 of the Act, which mandates informing the accused of their right to be searched in the presence of a gazetted officer or a Magistrate. The court found this contention without merit, as the contraband was seized from the tool box of the scooter and not from the person of the accused. The court referenced *Ajmer Singh v. State of Haryana* and *Madan Lal v. State of H.P.*, which held that Section 50 is not applicable when the search is of a vehicle and not the person. 3. Determination of Commercial and Non-Commercial Quantity: The appellant argued that the seized opium should be considered non-commercial based on the morphine content (1.66%) and the amendment to the Act in 2001. The court rejected this argument, stating that the amendment does not apply retroactively to cases pending before its enactment. The court cited *Basheer Alias N.P. Basheer v. State of Kerala* and *Nayak Ramesh Chandra Keshavlal v. State of Gujarat*, which upheld the constitutional validity of the proviso to Section 41(1) of the Amending Act, 2001, and clarified that the amendment is not applicable to cases pending before its enactment. 4. Non-Production of the Scooter in Court: The appellant contended that the non-production of the scooter in court created a significant gap in the prosecution's case. The court dismissed this argument, noting that all documents related to the scooter were seized, and witnesses had consistently mentioned the scooter's registration number. The court concluded that the non-production of the scooter did not affect the prosecution's case, describing the argument as "much ado about nothing." Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the appellant's contentions and upholding the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower courts.
|
