Back
SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Bijaya Kumar Sahu – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
JUDGMENT
S.S. Mishra, J.—The present Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13.06.1995 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balangir in Sessions Case No.8 of 1995, whereby the appellant and the co-accused were found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, “NDPS Act”) and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years each and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- each, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year each.
2. During the pendency of the appeal, appellant No.2 (Bidyadhar Sahu) is stated to have expired and accordingly, the appeal survives only in respect of appellant No.1, namely Bijaya Kumar Sahu. In so far as the deceased appellant No.2 is concerned, the appeal stands abated in the absence of application under Section 394 of Cr.P.C. by his L.R. or next friend. The written instruction is already on record.
3. Heard Mr. Debi Prasad Pattnaik, learned counsel, for the appellants and Mrs. Sarita Moharana, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.
4. The prosecution case in brief is that on 14.10.1994, P.W.1, a Constable attached to G.
Seizure of Ganja – Once foundational facts are proved, statutory presumption under Section 54 of NDPS Act legitimately operates against accused.
The court affirmed the conviction under the NDPS Act, emphasizing that procedural lapses do not invalidate the trial when no prejudice is demonstrated, and the prosecution established possession and ....
The court affirmed that possession of 201 kilograms of ganja established under the NDPS Act sufficed for conviction, confirming that procedural safeguards were adhered to despite the absence of indep....
As per section 55 of Act of 1985, police is required to take charge of articles seized or delivered and keep in safe custody pending order of Magistrate.
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....
Compliance with procedural requirements under the NDPS Act is essential; failure to ensure due process can undermine the prosecution's case, resulting in acquittal.
Procedural non-compliance under the N.D.P.S. Act, specifically regarding search and seizure requirements, vitiates the prosecution's case, leading to acquittal.
Point of law: While upholding the constitutional validity of sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act, the Apex Court has, however, reiterated that more serious the offence, the stricter would be the degre....
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
