SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(Bom) 963

N.A.BRITTO
Santosh Kumar Singh – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Ms. Asha Desai, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. W. Coutinho, Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

ORAL JUDGMENT

N.A. Britto, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18.9.2006 of the learned Special Judge, NDPS Court, Mapusa by which the accused has been convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months.

2. Heard Ms. Asha Dessai, the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant/accused and Ms. W. Coutinho, the learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the respondent.

3. The accused was charged and tried with the allegation that on 13.5.2004 between 14.30 hrs. to 18.30 hrs. the accused was found in illegal possession of 1.51 kgs of charas, near Kamat canteen at KTC bus stand. The case of the accused was of denial simpliciter. Later on the accused came up with the case that his name was not Santosh Kumar but was Jaiprakash Narayan.

4. In order to prove the case, prosecution examined 6 witnesses in all. Mahesh Kaissare/PW 1 is the Junior Scientific Officer who examined the sample and found it to be charas with a total weight, without any wrappings to be 1.445








Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top