Back
CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Tulik Ray @ Tulika Thapa – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/convicts under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) challenging the judgment of conviction dated 06.12.2017 and order of sentence dated 13.12.2017 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in Trial No. 74 of 2016 (arising out of D.R.I. Case No. 05 of 2015), whereby the concerned Trial Court has convicted the appellant/convict for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) (ii) (c) and 23 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘NDPS’) and they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-and in default of payment of fine, further undergo simple imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) (ii) (c) of the NDPS Act and rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-and in default of payment of fine, further undergo simple imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable under Section 23 (c) of the NDPS Act. All aforesaid sentences ordered to run concurrently.
2. The case of prosecution as speaks through com
The prosecution must comply with mandatory procedures for seizure and sampling under the NDPS Act, and failure to do so undermines the conviction.
Prosecution's failure to comply with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act led to the acquittal of the appellants due to insufficient evidence.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, especially in drug-related offenses, where compliance with mandatory procedures is crucial.
The prosecution must strictly comply with statutory requirements under the NDPS Act to establish a prima facie case; failure to do so undermines the conviction.
Possession of narcotic substances can result in conviction under NDPS despite procedural non-compliance if evidentiary strength supports prosecution's claims.
The prosecution must prove possession of narcotics beyond reasonable doubt, and procedural lapses do not automatically invalidate a conviction if credible evidence supports the case.
Compliance with the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act is not required where personal search of the body of the accused is not involved, and the provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act are not....
Confession of accused recorded by a Police Officer is not admissible in evidence as the same is hit by Section 25 of Evidence Act.
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
