9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Conviction under Section 21/23 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, compliance with search and seizure procedures under Section 42 and Section 50 of the Act, validity of recovery memo, presence of Superintendent of Customs during search, handling and storage of seized contraband, expert opinion on the nature of contraband recovered. Analysis: 1. The prosecution alleged that the Appellant was caught with heroin hidden in his shoes. However, crucial procedural lapses were identified. The information received by the officers was not recorded in writing as required by Section 42(1) of the Act, as highlighted in the case of State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh. This failure to comply with mandatory requirements affects the prosecution's case and vitiates the trial. 2. The prosecution failed to inform the Appellant of his right to have the search conducted before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer, as mandated by Section 50 of the Act. The absence of such information renders the recovery suspect, as established in the case law. The recovery memo did not indicate any offer to conduct the search before a higher authority, further undermining the legality of the seizure. 3. The presence of the Superintendent of Customs during the search was disputed, with conflicting testimonies from witnesses. The lack of the Superintendent's signature on the seized contraband raised doubts about the authenticity of the search and subsequent proceedings. The failure to produce written orders or evidence of the Superintendent's involvement cast uncertainty on the entire process. 4. Issues regarding the handling and storage of the seized contraband were raised. Witnesses admitted to inadequate documentation and storage practices, including the absence of receipts or registers to track the contraband's custody. The failure to properly identify and present the seized evidence in court undermined the prosecution's case. 5. The expert opinion on the nature of the recovered substance was deemed insufficient. The Chemical Examiner's report lacked essential data and did not provide the necessary details to confirm the contraband's classification. Without clear information on the composition of the substance, it was challenging to establish the Appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In conclusion, due to procedural irregularities, lack of compliance with statutory requirements, doubts regarding the search and seizure process, and inadequacies in handling and presenting evidence, the Court found the conviction and sentence of the Appellant unsustainable. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the Appellant was ordered to be released from custody unless required in any other criminal case.
|
