9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 1507 - HC - Indian LawsSmuggling - Heroin - offences u/s.8(c) r/w 21(c), 8(c) r/w 27(A), 8(c) r/w 28 & 8(c) r/w 29 of NDPS Act, 1985 amended by Act 9/2001 - acquittal of offences - quantitative analysis report in Ex.P50 - Held that - On consideration of the quantitative analysis report in Ex.P50, Court below rightly has found the quantum of heroin carried and sought to be exported by appellant to be commercial quantity - Ex.P50 informs that the same has been prepared by one Karthikeyan, Assisant Director and Assistant Chemical Examiner to Government. Such official is a Government Scientific Expert and as such his report falls with the purview of Section 293 Cr.P.C. - appeal dismissed.
Issues:
- Appeal against judgment of Special Judge under NDPS Act - Conviction for possession of heroin - Analysis of scientific reports for determining quantity of heroin - Application of Sections 21 and 293 of NDPS Act and Cr.P.C. - Dismissal of the Criminal Appeal and reduction of default sentence Analysis: The judgment concerns an appeal against a Special Judge's decision under the NDPS Act, where the appellant was convicted for possession of heroin. The prosecution's case was based on the appellant being found with 2.825 kgs of heroin, leading to charges under various sections of the NDPS Act. During the trial, the prosecution presented evidence from nine witnesses and marked 65 exhibits, while the defense did not present any witnesses or exhibits. The trial court acquitted the appellant of some charges but convicted him under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act, sentencing him to 10 years imprisonment and a fine. The appeal was filed challenging this decision. The defense argued that the quantitative analysis report, crucial for determining the quantity of heroin, was unreliable and presented late in court, questioning the imposition of the maximum sentence. The prosecution clarified that the report was timely submitted and admissible, showing the heroin quantity to be of commercial value. The court considered these arguments and the provisions of Section 21 of the NDPS Act, which outline punishments based on the quantity of drugs involved. It was noted that the heroin quantity in question fell under the commercial category, justifying the conviction and sentence. Regarding the admissibility of scientific reports, Section 293 of the Cr.P.C. was invoked, allowing reports from Government scientific experts to be used as evidence. The report in question, prepared by an Assistant Director and Assistant Chemical Examiner to the Government, was deemed admissible under this section. The court upheld the validity of the report and its role in determining the commercial quantity of heroin, supporting the conviction under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act. Ultimately, the court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it. However, considering the appellant's default in paying the fine, the court reduced the default sentence to one month imprisonment. The judgment highlighted the importance of scientific evidence, legal provisions, and sentencing considerations in cases involving drug possession under the NDPS Act.
|
