judgement
Subject : Criminal Law - Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances
The appellants, accused Nos. 1 and 2 in S.C. No. 9 of 2007, were convicted and sentenced by the Special Judge (NDPS Act Cases) in Vadakara for the offense under Section 20(b)(II)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. They challenged the conviction and sentence in this appeal.
The main arguments presented by the appellants were: 1. The trial court did not consider the statement filed by the accused under Section 233(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code while appreciating the evidence of material witnesses. 2. There were discrepancies regarding the time of occurrence in the crime and occurrence reports. 3. There was non-compliance with Sections 52 and 57 of the NDPS Act, which caused prejudice to the accused. 4. The prosecution failed to provide satisfactory evidence on the manner of sampling and the safe custody of the seized contraband. 5. The prosecution only took a sample from one packet out of the 23 packets seized, and there was no evidence regarding the total quantity of ganja in that packet.
The court found that the prosecution had failed to establish the foundational facts beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence of the independent witnesses, PWs 7 and 8, contradicted the prosecution's case and supported the defense's version of events. The court also noted the discrepancies in the time of occurrence and the non-compliance with the procedural requirements under the NDPS Act, which caused prejudice to the accused.
The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellants/accused Nos. 1 and 2 of the offense under Section 20(b)(II)(c) of the NDPS Act. The court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and the presumption of innocence had not been rebutted.
#NDPSAct #GanjaTrafficking #CriminalJustice #High_Court_of_Kerala
ITAT Rejects Equity Re-characterization of CCDs, Allows Interest Deduction for Goldman Sachs Under IT Act
06 Jun 2026
Privatization of Public Services Cannot Override RTI Act: CIC Issues Advisory to Delhi Jal Board
06 Jun 2026
Repayment of Loans in Subsequent Years Bars Section 68 Additions: ITAT Surat Bench Affirms CIT(A)
06 Jun 2026
ITAT Surat: Interest Income from Co-operative Banks Eligible for Deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) for Co-operative Societies
06 Jun 2026
PCIT Cannot Invoke Section 263 to Direct Penalty Initiation Where AO Found No Merit: ITAT Visakhapatnam
06 Jun 2026
CIC Dismisses RTI Appeal as Barred by Res Judicata in Railway Service Dispute: Case No. CIC/MORLY/A/2023/146458
06 Jun 2026
CIC Upholds Denial of Dealer Data under RTI Act, Citing Commercial Confidence in Kuldeep Singh vs. NFL
06 Jun 2026
CIC Upholds Denial of Dealer Data Under RTI Act due to 'Commercial Confidence' per Section 8(1)(d)
06 Jun 2026
ITAT Chennai Allows Securitization Costs and SBN Deposits: Verdict on Asirvad Micro Finance vs. DCIT
06 Jun 2026
Disclosure of Marks of Selected Candidates in Public Recruitment Mandatory: Central Information Commission
06 Jun 2026
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.