9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Conviction under Section 21 of the NDPS Act 2. Compliance with mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act 3. Preservation of case property and genuineness of recovery Analysis: 1. The appellant was convicted under Section 21 of the NDPS Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000. The appellant filed an appeal from jail and was represented by an appointed amicus curiae, Ms. Pinki Anand. The appeal was initially barred by limitation but the delay was condoned by an order dated August 31, 1987. 2. The prosecution's case involved the apprehension of the appellant at a bus stand where 300 gms of smack heroin were recovered from his possession. The prosecution witnesses included Inspector Satendra Nath, Asi Umed Singh, and Head Constable Attar Singh. The defense pointed out non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, which require offering the accused the option of a search in the presence of a gazetted officer or magistrate. 3. The judge noted that the police did not comply with the provisions preceding the recovery, raising doubts about the genuineness of the recovery. The parcel containing the heroin did not bear seals when presented in court, indicating a lack of proper preservation of case property. The judge emphasized the importance of complying with the salutary provisions of the NDPS Act to ensure fair investigations. Due to these deficiencies and doubts, the judge acquitted the appellant, setting aside the conviction and sentences. 4. In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted based on the lack of compliance with mandatory provisions, doubts about the genuineness of the recovery, and insufficient preservation of case property. The judgment highlighted the importance of following legal procedures to uphold the integrity of investigations and ensure justice in cases involving serious offenses under the NDPS Act.
|
