Back
SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
Vijay Mahto @ Bijay Mahto – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
Sunil Dutta Mishra, J. – Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned APP for the State.
2. The present Criminal Appeal has been filed under Sections 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) against the judgment dated 24.05.2006 and sentence dated 26.05.2006 in Sessions Trial No.243 of 1990 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.5, Biharsarif, Nalanda (hereinafter referred to as the “Trial Court”), wherein the appellant has been convicted under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as “N.D.P.S. Act”) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and was also imposed with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of which the appellant has to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years.
3. The brief facts of the case as per the prosecution is that on 25.03.1987, Dinesh Chandra Gupta (P.W.5), Sub- Inspector of Excise, along with Sri S.S. Srivastava, Executive Magistrate, on secret information, visited and recovered 1800 opium plants from the alleged field of appellant at Asha Nagar, Biharsarif and also from nearby two plots 500 and 2000 opiu
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 prosecution failed to prove conscious possession under the NDPS Act beyond reasonable doubt due to procedural discrepancies and lack of independent witness corroboration.
Seizure of Ganja – Once foundational facts are proved, statutory presumption under Section 54 of NDPS Act legitimately operates against accused.
Prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt accused's active cultivation of cannabis on jointly owned land through evidence of possession and nurturing; mere presence or joint ownership insufficie....
The conviction of the appellant was overturned due to insufficient evidence of possession and procedural violations under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances 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
