Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
G.BASAVARAJA
Intelligence Officer Narcotics Control Bureau, Chennai – Appellant
Versus
S. Saravanan S/o (Late) Selvaraju – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. seizure of narcotics under ndps act. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. framing of charges and evidence collection. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. arguments for and against acquittal. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. defense's acceptance of trial court's judgment. (Para 14 , 20) |
| 5. standard for appellate review of acquittal. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 19) |
| 6. conclusion and dismissal of appeal. (Para 21 , 22) |
JUDGMENT :
G.BASAVARAJA, J.
The appellant/State has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Prl. Sessions Judge, Tumkur in Special Case No.53/2005 dated 08.09.2010.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their status before the trial Court.
3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that PW12-A. Caleb Arumairaj, Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Chennai has lodged a complaint before the Court on 20.06.2005 against the accused to take cognizance of the offences under Sections 8 (c) read with Sections 21 (c), 25, 27-A, 28 and 29 of the N.D.P.S Act, 1985 as amended in 2001.
4. It is alleged by the prosecution that Thirumalai Sridhar (PW1), Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, South Zonal Unit, Chennai (NCB for short)
Acquittal of the accused under the NDPS Act is upheld as the trial court's judgment was not flawed and adhered to evidentiary standards.
The prosecution failed to prove the possession of narcotics and did not comply with mandatory statutory requirements, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Non-compliance with Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act is fatal to the prosecution case, and the powers of the appellate court in appeals against acquittal should be exercised with caution.
Strict adherence to statutory provisions under the NDPS Act is essential for validity of evidence; non-compliance undermines the prosecution's case.
Strict compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 42(1) and 42(2) of the NDPS Act is required, and the prosecution must establish the accused's conscious possession of the contraband.
When two views are possible, judgment and order of acquittal passed by trial Court should not be interfered with by Appellate Court unless for special reasons.
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
