9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Conviction under Section 22 read with Section 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Ownership and possession of the premises in question. Analysis: The appellant was convicted under Section 22 read with Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act based on the seizure of 50,000 Mandrex tablets from a specific premises. The prosecution presented the case before the Special Judge, who convicted the appellant and sentenced him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The appellant challenged this conviction before the Bombay High Court, which upheld the judgment of the Special Judge. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court, raising contentions regarding the ownership and possession of the premises where the contraband was seized. The appellant's counsel argued that the prosecution failed to establish the ownership and possession of the premises where the tablets were seized as belonging to the appellant. The prosecution primarily relied on an agreement found in the premises containing the appellant's signature to establish ownership. However, the appellant denied admitting his signature on the agreement and retracted statements made during interrogation under the Customs Act and NDPS Act. The Additional Solicitor General contended that the agreement and the appellant's statements were sufficient to prove ownership and possession. The Supreme Court analyzed the evidence and found that the prosecution did not adequately establish the appellant's ownership of the premises. The Court noted that the agreement was not seized from the appellant's custody or control, and no independent evidence was presented to prove ownership. The prosecution failed to produce documents from the Registrar's office or examine neighbors to corroborate ownership claims. Additionally, the witnesses attesting the panchnama did not support the prosecution's version. The Court concluded that without sufficient corroborating evidence, the appellant's retracted statements alone were insufficient to prove ownership and possession. The High Court's reliance on Section 66 of the NDPS Act to admit the agreement as evidence of ownership was deemed incorrect by the Supreme Court. The Court held that the prosecution's failure to establish ownership through independent evidence rendered the conviction unsustainable. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and ordered the appellant's immediate release. Any fine paid was to be refunded.
|
