Back
A. V. RAVINDRA BABU
Anuboina Krishna S/o Chandra Rao – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J.
1. Challenge in this Criminal Appeal is to the judgment, dated 08.09.2009 in NDPS Sessions Case No. 31 of 2007, on the file of the Special Judge for Trial of the Cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985-cum-I Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari, Rajahmundry (“Special Judge” for short). This appeal is filed by the unsuccessful A.1 and A.2 in the aforesaid Sessions Case. They faced trial under Section 8(c) r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act” for short) and they were convicted under Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.” for short) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years each and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/-each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months each.
2. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the learned Special Judge for the sake of convenience.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, as set out in the charge sheet filed by the Inspector of Police, Korukonda Circle, alleging the offence Section 8(c) r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of N.D.P.S. Act is as follow
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....
Non-compliance with mandatory provisions under the NDPS Act does not vitiate the trial but renders the recovery suspect. The burden of proving a satisfactory explanation for possession lies with the ....
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.
Non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act vitiates the conviction, especially where the prosecution relies solely on police testimony without corroboration from independent witness....
The court found the accused guilty of possession of Ganja based on consistent evidence from witnesses and dismissed the appeal.
The provisions contained in Chapter V are intended for providing certain checks on exercise of the powers of authority concerned and to avoid misuse and arbitrary exercise of the power, in absence of....
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....
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
