Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, SOURENDRA PANDEY
Toofani Ram, Son of Vishwanath Ram – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This appeal is arising out of judgment of conviction dated 18.03.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’) and the order of sentence dated 22.03.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned order’) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, NDPS Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial court’) in Trial No. 30 of 2020 arising out of Kuchaikote P.S. Case No. 489 of 2020.
3. By the impugned judgment, the learned trial court has been pleased to convict the appellants for the offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘NDPS Act’) and ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twelve years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,20,000/-. In case of default of payment of fine, he has to further undergo one year imprisonment.
Prosecution Case
4. The prosecution case is based on the written application of the informant (PW-1). In his written application (Exhibit ‘2’), the informant has alleged that he got a secret information on 18.12.2020 at 10:10 AM tha
The court emphasized the necessity for strict adherence to procedural safeguards in drug-related cases, ruling that non-compliance rendered the prosecution's case unsustainable.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, especially in drug-related offenses, where compliance with mandatory procedures is crucial.
Recovery of Ganja – Samples drawn in presence of Magistrate and list thereof on being certified alone would constitute primary evidence for the purposes of trial.
Procedural lapses in evidence collection under the NDPS Act, particularly failure to comply with Section 52A, render prosecution's case insufficient for conviction.
Non-compliance with statutory requirements for search and seizure under the NDPS Act renders the prosecution's case doubtful, leading to the reversal of conviction.
Confession of accused recorded by a Police Officer is not admissible in evidence as the same is hit by Section 25 of Evidence Act.
Prosecution must adhere to strict evidential procedures in NDPS Act cases; failure undermines the conviction. In this case, inconsistencies in evidence and chain of custody led to acquittal.
Failure to comply with mandatory procedures under the NDPS Act vitiates conviction, necessitating primary evidence for a valid trial.
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
