9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act. 2. Seizure and panchnama procedures. 3. Delay in sending samples for chemical analysis. 4. Evidence linking the accused to the contraband. 5. Examination of witnesses and reliability of evidence. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act: The appellant's primary contention was the non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, which mandates that the accused should be informed of their right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. The prosecution argued that the accused was informed of this right, and he consented to be searched by Assistant Director Rohatgi and another officer, both of whom were Gazetted Officers. However, the court found this offer insufficient as it did not comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 50. The court referenced the Division Bench decision in *Mohanlal Khetaram Jangid v. State of Maharashtra* and the Supreme Court ruling in *Ahmed v. State of Gujarat*, which emphasized that informing the accused about the right to be searched by independent Gazetted Officers is crucial. The court concluded that the search was illegal due to non-compliance with Section 50, rendering the conviction and sentence liable to be set aside. 2. Seizure and Panchnama Procedures: The appellant argued that the seizure of the contraband was not conducted in his presence, nor was a copy of the seizure panchnama provided to him, causing prejudice. The court noted that the accused was available in the hospital during the seizure, and there was no mention in the panchnama that he refused to accept a copy. The court cited the Division Bench decision in *Shankar Banglorkar v. State of Goa*, which held that failure to provide a copy of the seizure panchnama to the accused could invalidate the recovery. Additionally, the inventory maintained by the hospital was not signed or initialed by anyone, and the writer was not examined, further weakening the prosecution's case. 3. Delay in Sending Samples for Chemical Analysis: The appellant contended that the samples were sent for chemical analysis five days after the seizure, during which the investigating officer retained both the samples and the seal. The court found this delay problematic, as it created an opportunity for tampering. The court referenced the Division Bench decision in *Wessel Van Beelan v. State of Goa*, which stressed the importance of ensuring that the specimen seal is not accessible to the investigating officer after sealing the samples. The court concluded that the delay and retention of the seal raised doubts about the integrity of the samples. 4. Evidence Linking the Accused to the Contraband: The court found significant discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence linking the accused to the contraband. The named polythene bags used to store the capsules purged by the accused were not produced in evidence. The inventory maintained by the hospital was not proved, and the seizure panchnama was not contemporaneous or reliable. The court noted that the forwarding letter to the Forensic Science Laboratory mentioned 52 capsules, while the panchnama and inventory indicated 40 capsules, further highlighting the inconsistencies in the prosecution's case. 5. Examination of Witnesses and Reliability of Evidence: The court observed that key witnesses, such as the radiologist, resident doctor, and hospital staff, were not examined. The only hospital witness, Dr. Algotar, did not have personal knowledge of the purging process. The court emphasized the importance of examining these witnesses to establish a clear link between the accused and the contraband. The lack of reliable evidence and the prosecution's reliance on presumptions and assumptions weakened their case. Conclusion: The court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, discrepancies in the evidence, delay in sending samples for analysis, and failure to examine key witnesses created reasonable doubt. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, quashing the convictions and sentences, and acquitting the appellant. The court ordered the appellant's immediate release and the return of his passport after two weeks.
|
