Back
A. V. RAVINDRA BABU
Jagadeeshan – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT
A.V.RAVINDRA BABU, J. - The judgment, dtd. 19/1/2009 in Sessions Case No.3 of 2008, on the file of Special Judge for NDPS Cases-cum-I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole ("Special Judge" for short), is under challenge in the present appeal filed by the unsuccessful Accused, who faced trial for the charge under Sec. 20(b)(ii)(B. r/w 8(c. of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 ("NDPS Act" for short. and was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 1/2 years and to pay fine of Rs.500.00 in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.
2. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.
3. The State, represented by the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Ongole, filed a charge sheet in PR.No.150/2007-08 of Prohibition & Excise Station, Ongole, alleging the offence under Sec. 20(b)(ii)(B. r/w 8(c. of the NDPS Act.
4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 7/12/2007 L.W.8-K. Venkateswara Rao, Prohibition and Excise S.I. along with L.W.3-Ch. Harinarayana, P.C.1040" L.W.4-Sk.Md. Rafi, P&EC.228 L.W.5-P. Narapureddy, P.C.1988; L.W.6-
The court found the accused guilty of possession of Ganja based on consistent evidence from witnesses and dismissed the appeal.
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 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 ....
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....
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 upheld the conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act for possession of ganja, clarifying the applicability of Sections 42 and 43, and addressing the burden of proof regarding po....
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....
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
