9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeal against conviction under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act for possession of Charas; Compliance with mandatory requirements of Section 42, Section 50, and Section 57 of NDPS Act. Analysis: The judgment involves an appeal against a conviction under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act for possession of Charas. The appellant was found with 1800 gms of Charas in his baggage while leaving India, while a co-accused lady passenger was found with 420 gms of Charas in her baggage. The co-accused was acquitted due to the benefit of doubt, while the appellant was sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 lac. The appellant raised three technical pleas, including non-compliance with Section 42, Section 50, and Section 57 of the NDPS Act. Regarding the second plea raised by the appellant, the court referred to previous judgments clarifying that if incriminating substances are found in luggage not under the passenger's control, Section 50 of the Act does not apply. The court rejected this ground, citing the Supreme Court's clarification on the matter. On the first ground raised by the appellant, the court analyzed the difference between Section 42 and Section 43 of the Act. It was argued that the seizure took place in a public place, invoking Section 43. However, the court determined that the Luggage Hold Area of the Customs Authorities was not a public place due to restricted entry. The court emphasized that the provisions of Section 42, including taking down information in writing, were mandatory and not complied with in this case, leading to the rejection of the plea. Regarding the non-observance of Section 57, the court noted that the prosecution failed to produce the report of seizure, leading to an adverse inference against the prosecution. The court emphasized the importance of proving compliance with all mandatory requirements under the Act and held that the prosecution did not discharge this onus. In conclusion, the court found that the prosecution failed to prove compliance with Sections 42 and 57 of the Act, leading to the acquittal of the appellant. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act and the burden of proof on the prosecution to establish such compliance.
|
