9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Appeal against conviction u/s 15 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Non-examination of independent witness; Ownership of the car; Signature on memo; Broken seal; Conscious possession; Compliance with Section 50 of the Act; Preparation of Central Forensic Science Laboratory form; Number of samples drawn; Quantity of contraband attributed.
Non-examination of independent witness: - Accused claimed non-corroboration by independent witness Kaur Singh. - Court held non-examination of Kaur Singh not fatal for prosecution as no enmity or suggestion of false implication was proven. - Relied on Gurdip Singh's case to support the decision. Ownership of the car: - Defense argued doubt on prosecution story due to shops near recovery place and car ownership. - Court found testimony of owner Devinder Kumar credible, supporting prosecution's narrative. - Proximity of shops did not make non-joining of shopkeepers fatal for prosecution. Signature on memo: - Defense raised doubt on appellant's knowledge of Gurmukhi script. - Court noted appellant's lack of objection earlier, dismissing this submission. Broken seal: - Defense claimed misuse due to broken seal of Station House Officer. - Court found the readable seal not casting doubt on prosecution, emphasizing lack of evidence to prove false implication. Conscious possession: - Defense argued lack of proof of conscious possession by the accused. - Court cited Supreme Court ruling shifting onus to accused to disprove possession of contraband. Compliance with Section 50 of the Act: - Defense alleged non-compliance in offering search before Gazetted Officer. - Court distinguished the case from Man Bahadur's case, stating it was not a personal search scenario. Preparation of Central Forensic Science Laboratory form: - Defense pointed out missing form preparation at the spot. - Court dismissed the doubt, noting other circumstances in Kaku Singh's case and lack of specific cross-examination on this point. Number of samples drawn: - Discrepancy in the number of samples drawn highlighted by the defense. - Court clarified the discrepancy, emphasizing the deposition of two samples and two bags with the witness. Quantity of contraband attributed: - Defense argued against attributing full quantity to the accused. - Court rejected the argument, stating commercial quantity possession cannot be divided for convenience. Conclusion: - No grounds for interference found, trial court's decision affirmed. - Appeal dismissed for lack of merit, judgment to be sent for compliance.
|
