J. B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN
Rakesh Kumar Raghuvanshi – Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
ORDER :
1. This appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 7th May, 2013 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Indore in Crl.A.No.1213 of 1997 by which the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein and thereby affirmed the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 8 read with Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (For short “the NDPS Act”).
2. The case of the prosecution may be summarized as under:
“Regarding registration of the crime, it is submitted that I, ASI M.Beg received information from the informer while attending the duty on 29.12.96 at 22.15 o'clock that a dark complexioned person is traveling in Bhopal Rajkot 1270 up train in the gallery of the bathroom at the last compartment of General Coach, carrying three separate cartoon packets. He is sitting on one of them. This information was entered in General Diary no. 2381 on 29.12.96 and to confirm the information constable Braj Mohan was sent to
Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2002) 7 SCC 419 [Para 12]
Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri v. State of Gujarat reported in 2000 (2) SCC 513 [Para 22]
(1) Presumption from possession of illicit articles – Unless and until contrary is proved in trial of cases involving offences coming within purview of NDPS Act, it may be presumed that accused has c....
Conscious possession must be established by prosecution in narcotics cases, shifting burden to the accused to explain possession; minor discrepancies do not negate the prosecution’s case.
Point of law: While upholding the constitutional validity of sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act, the Apex Court has, however, reiterated that more serious the offence, the stricter would be the degre....
The mandatory nature of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act is upheld, ensuring strict adherence to procedural safeguards in drug-related offenses, while presuming culpable mental state based on posse....
The prosecution must establish conscious possession beyond reasonable doubt in NDPS cases.
The recovery of contraband from a public place does not require compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act, and the presumption of conscious possession under Section 54 places the burden of proof on ....
Conscious possession must be established for conviction under the NDPS Act; mere proximity to contraband is insufficient.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove conscious possession of contraband and the application of presumption of culpable mental state unde....
The court affirmed that once possession of narcotics is established, the accused must prove lack of knowledge regarding the substance's illicit nature, as per Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act.
The judgment emphasized the importance of compliance with legal provisions, credibility of witness testimonies, and conscious possession of contraband in upholding the conviction and sentence.
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.