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
Vague 'Bad Work' Can't Presume Penetrative Sexual Assault Under POCSO Section 4 Without Evidence: Patna High Court
28 Apr 2026
Limiting Crop Damage Compensation to Specific Wild Animals Excluding Birds Violates Article 14: Bombay HC
28 Apr 2026
Appeal Limitation in 1991 Police Rules Yields to Uttarakhand Police Act 2007 on Inconsistency: Uttarakhand HC
28 Apr 2026
Nashik Court Reserves Verdict on Khan's TCS Bail Plea
29 Apr 2026
Delhi Court Grants Bail to I-PAC Director in PMLA Case
30 Apr 2026
No Historic Record of Saraswati Temple Demolition, Muslim Body Tells MP High Court in Bhojshala Dispute
30 Apr 2026
No Absolute Bar on Simultaneous Parole/Furlough for Co-Accused Under Delhi Prisons Rules: Delhi High Court
30 Apr 2026
Rejection of Jurisdiction Plea under Section 16 Arbitration Act Not Challengeable under Section 34 Till Final Award: Supreme Court
30 Apr 2026
'Living Separately' Under Section 13B HMA Means Cessation Of Marital Obligations, Regardless Of Residence: Patna High Court
30 Apr 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.