9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge of conviction under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, compliance with mandatory provisions of Sections 41 and 42, breach of Section 50, sufficiency of evidence, impact of procedural lapses on the defense. Analysis: The appellant contested his conviction under sections 20/22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, along with the imposed sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 lac. The prosecution's case revolved around the recovery of opium from the appellant's possession at his Dhaba, following information received by ASI Shri R.S. Singh. The contraband was confirmed to be opium through expert opinions and led to the appellant's charge, trial, conviction, and sentencing by the second Additional Sessions Judge. The defense, however, claimed that no items were found in the appellant's possession, alleging that the police officers sought money from him, leading to a fabricated case against him. The defense highlighted various discrepancies and procedural lapses in the prosecution's case. It was argued that mandatory provisions of Sections 41 and 42 of the Act were not adhered to, as the ASI failed to record the information received and the search party did not conduct a personal search before entering the Dhaba. Additionally, under Section 50 of the Act, the appellant should have been informed of his right to opt for a search in the presence of a gazetted officer or magistrate, which was not done. These lapses were considered serious infirmities that compromised the validity of the conviction and sentence. The defense counsel relied on legal precedents to support the argument that such procedural violations could prejudice the defense and render the conviction unsustainable. The court acknowledged the defense's contentions regarding the procedural lapses and non-compliance with statutory provisions. It emphasized the importance of strict adherence to procedural obligations, especially in cases carrying severe penalties like 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and substantial fines. The court concluded that the prosecution's failure to comply with essential procedural requirements had indeed prejudiced the defense, warranting the setting aside of the conviction and sentence. Consequently, the appellant's appeal was allowed, leading to the acquittal of the charge against him.
|
