Back
SHAILENDRA SINGH
Lakshaman Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Shailendra Singh, J.—Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned APP appearing for UOI through NCB.
2. The instant appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction dated 06.06.2022 and order of sentence dated 16.06.2022 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, West Champaran, Bettiah, in connection with N.D.P.S. Case No. 63/2021 arising out of N.C.B. Case No. 23/2018 (Special Case No. 18/2018), whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act (hereinafter referred to as NDPS Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for one year has been awarded upon him and he has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the offence punishable under Section 29 of NDPS Act with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for one year has been awarded upon him and both the sen
Confessional statements made to officers under the NDPS Act are inadmissible, and mere dock identification is insufficient for conviction.
Presumption of culpable mental state - Initial burden is cast on prosecution to establish essential factors on which its case is premised - Standard of proof required for accused to prove his innocen....
Failures and inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, including unexplained delay in informing the police, contradictions in the evidence of prosecution's witnesses, and failure to produce the seiz....
Confessional Statement in front of police officer - Admissibility of - Officers who are invested with powers under S. 53 of NDPS Act are “police officers” within meaning of S. 25 of Evidence Act, as ....
The prosecution must comply with mandatory procedural requirements in drug cases, failing which foundational facts required to establish guilt cannot be met, leading to acquittal.
The admissibility of evidence, including confessional statements, and the application of Section 37 of the NDPS Act for bail, were central legal points established in the judgment.
Seizure of Heroin – Process of drawing of samples has to be in presence and under supervision of Magistrate and entire exercise has to be certified by him to be correct.
The main legal point established is the inadmissibility of retracted statements under Section 67 of NDPS Act and the need for corroboration of evidence in drug-related cases.
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
