Back
VENKATESH NAIK T.
Mallappa – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Venkatesh Naik T., J. - This appeal is filed by the appellant/accused under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') praying to set aside the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 04.01.2021 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Vijayapura, (for short 'trial Court') in Special (NDPS) Case No.3/2018, wherein the trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 20 (b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act').
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. The appellant is the accused and the respondent-State is the complainant.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 20.05.2017 at about 2.00 p.m., PW3-Excise Inspector received credible information that, the accused is transporting ganja on Bajaj Kawasaki motorcycle, bearing Registration No.KA-23/EF-1977, from Kannur Village side to Tidag
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....
Non-compliance with mandatory procedural safeguards under Section 50 of the NDPS Act vitiates the prosecution case, entitling the accused to the benefit of doubt.
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 ....
Search and seizure under NDPS Act must comply with Section 50 provisions, failing which accused are entitled to acquittal.
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....
Non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, such as section 42(2) and section 50(4), can render the prosecution case doubtful and lead to acquittal.
The court found the accused guilty of possession of Ganja based on consistent evidence from witnesses and dismissed the appeal.
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
