Back
J. B. PARDIWALA, K. V. VISWANATHAN
Manoj Tejraj Jain – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
The compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, which pertains to the procedures and safeguards during search and seizure operations, is a significant aspect of the case. Based on the provided document, the following points are relevant:
The search and seizure conducted at the premises of Narendra Kacha, who was in possession and control of the godown, resulted in the recovery of 55 boxes of Ephedrine weighing 1364 Kgs (!) (!) . The search was carried out in the presence of independent witnesses (panchas); however, all these witnesses turned hostile, which raises concerns about the compliance with procedural safeguards (!) (!) .
Despite the witnesses turning hostile, the Court observed that the search ultimately led to the recovery of the contraband and that the procedure did not suffer from fundamental infirmities. The Court noted that the search was not illegal or contrary to the provisions of the NDPS Act, implying a finding of procedural compliance (!) (!) .
The Court scrutinized the evidence regarding the search and seizure process, including the signatures obtained and the conduct of the police officers involved. It was noted that the witnesses, although hostile, did not provide sufficient grounds to disbelieve the legality of the search (!) .
The Court emphasized that the search and seizure, which led to the recovery of the controlled substance, was ultimately justified and that the procedural requirements under Section 42 were sufficiently met, or at least did not render the evidence inadmissible (!) .
In conclusion, the Court found that the search and seizure were carried out in accordance with the procedural safeguards mandated by Section 42 of the NDPS Act, and the evidence obtained therein was admissible. This compliance was a crucial factor in affirming the conviction of Narendra Kacha, although the Court also acknowledged the importance of the procedural safeguards and the hostile witnesses' role in the case.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. common judgment for similar appeals. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. trial court convicted all accused in ndps cases. (Para 3 , 4 , 6 , 10) |
| 3. seizure of controlled substance with confessional statements. (Para 5 , 8 , 9 , 12) |
| 4. dissatisfaction with trial judgment led to appeals. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. court's critical view of high court's assessment. (Para 22 , 30 , 31 , 40) |
| 6. legal principles of culpability under ndps act. (Para 32 , 33 , 35) |
| 7. high court's decision on evidentiary standards. (Para 60 , 62 , 70) |
| 8. reduction of sentence based on time served. (Para 71 , 72) |
| 9. acquittal of connected cases and discharge of bonds. (Para 73 , 74) |
ORDER :
2. These appeals are at the instance of four convicts and are directed against the self-same Judgment and Order passed by the High Court of Gujarat dated 8-9-2023 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 2328/2019, 2349/2019, 5184-5185/2024 and 2298/2019 respectively, by which the High Court dismissed all the appeals preferred by the convicts and thereby affirmed the Judgment and Order of conviction dated 7-10-2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) Mirzapur at Ahmedabad in the NDPS Case No. 4/2016, NDPS Case No. 6/2016 and NDPS Ca
Knowledge of illegal activities is a prerequisite for liability under Section 25 of the NDPS Act, and the prosecution bears the burden of proof to establish such knowledge.
Seizure of psychotropic substance – Conviction and sentence cannot be sustained when there is no recovery from appellant of any incriminating material.
The prosecution must comply with mandatory procedural requirements in drug cases, failing which foundational facts required to establish guilt cannot be met, leading to acquittal.
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 court affirmed that possession of contraband substances establishes statutory presumptions requiring defendants to prove lack of conscious possession under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Sub....
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....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
