9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 2 - SC - Indian LawsSmuggling - Opium - contraband item - noncompliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act - HELD THAT - Though the Laboratory Report was obtained, but the identity of the sample stated to have been seized from the appellant was not conclusively established by the prosecution - The failure of the prosecution in the present case to relate the seized sample with that seized from the appellant makes the case no different from failure to produce the seized sample itself. In the circumstances the mere production of a laboratory report that the sample tested was narcotics cannot be conclusive proof by itself. The sample seized and that tested have to be corelated. The conviction of the appellant cannot be upheld - appeal allowed.
Issues:
1. Conviction and sentence under Sections 8 and 15 of the NDPS Act. 2. Compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act. 3. Identification of the seized sample. 4. Previous history of convictions under the NDPS Act. 5. Burden of proof under the NDPS Act. 6. Correlation between seized sample and tested sample. Issue 1: The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence under Sections 8 and 15 of the NDPS Act for 15 years with a fine. The appellant was found carrying a plastic flour packet containing 10 kgs of opium. The defense argued false implication due to lack of independent witnesses and noncompliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The prosecution failed to conclusively prove the identity of the sample produced in court as the one seized from the appellant. Issue 2: The defense contended that Section 50 of the NDPS Act was not complied with as no independent witness was present during the seizure. The High Court considered the absence of a recovery memo but deemed the police witness's deposition as sufficient compliance. However, the prosecution failed to establish conclusively that the sample produced in court was the same as seized from the appellant. Issue 3: The defense objected to the identification of the seized sample, citing poor quality of the plastic packet and ink used. The Trial Court acknowledged the poor conditions of malkhanas but emphasized witness testimonies over sample identification. The High Court did not address this issue. The failure to conclusively identify the sample as seized from the appellant was deemed inconsequential. Issue 4: The State highlighted the appellant's previous convictions under the NDPS Act to establish him as a habitual offender. The defense argued that previous convictions should not be a ground for conviction per se, as they are relevant for sentencing purposes only. Issue 5: The judgment referred to the burden of proof under the NDPS Act, emphasizing that the prosecution must establish a prima facie case beyond reasonable doubt before shifting the burden to the accused. The stringent provisions of the Act do not dispense with the prosecution's obligation to prove its case conclusively. Issue 6: The judgment discussed the necessity of correlating the seized sample with the tested sample to establish guilt under the NDPS Act. Failure to produce the seized sample or explain its absence undermines the prosecution's case. The Court cited previous cases where non-production of seized materials led to acquittals. In conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the appellant's conviction, noting the prosecution's failure to establish a conclusive link between the seized sample and the one produced in court. The Court emphasized the importance of complying with procedural requirements and proving the case beyond reasonable doubt under the NDPS Act. The appellant was acquitted and directed to be released unless required in another case.
|
