Back
A V RAVINDRA BABU
Shaik Meerabi, W/o. Shaik Khadar Mohiddin – Appellant
Versus
State Of A. P. , Rep By PP. , rep by its Public Prosecutor – Respondent
ORDER :
Challenge in this Criminal Appeal is to the judgment in Sessions Case No.42 of 2007, dated 19.01.2009, on the file of Special Judge for NDPS Cases-cum-I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ongole (“Special Judge” for short), whereunder the learned Special Judge found the accused Nos.1 and 2 guilty of the charge under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) r/w 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act” for short), convicted them under Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure) (“Cr.P.C.” for short) and after questioning them about the quantum of sentence, sentenced A.1 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days and sentenced A.2 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.100/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days. The appellants herein are no other than A.1 and A.2 in the aforesaid Sessions Case.
2. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the learned Special Judge for the sake of the convenience.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, according to the charge sheet filed by t
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for truthful and consistent prosecution evidence, especially regarding the involvement of mediators, and the importance of complian....
The prosecution's burden to prove the recovery of contraband from the accused, the presumption under Section 35, and the link between the contraband and the accused were central legal principles esta....
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and strict compliance with procedural requirements and foundational facts is essential for conviction under the NDPS Act.
Possession of narcotics requires no personal search compliance under Section 50 when found during public checks; evidence established conscious possession leads to conviction under the NDPS Act.
Mandatory provisions under Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act must be followed strictly; non-compliance vitiates prosecution.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the presumption of culpable mental state and possession under Section 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act, and the court's reliance on the prosecution's evid....
The court emphasized that compliance of Sec. 50 of the NDPS Act was not necessary as there was no personal search of the accused, and the accused's conscious possession of Ganja led to the presumptio....
Prosecution has failed to prove the said mandatory compliance as required in law, i.e., the mandatory provision of Section 50 of NDPS Act, 1985. Therefore, appellants who are accused are entitled to ....
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
