Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, SOURENDRA PANDEY
Ali Ahamad, Son of Late Pir Mohammad – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar through D.R.I., Patna. Bihar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the prosecution case and evidence. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. the court's findings on the prosecution evidence. (Para 10 , 18 , 20 , 21) |
| 3. arguments presented by the appellants. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 19) |
| 4. judicial observations on evidentiary standards. (Para 25 , 34 , 36 , 38) |
| 5. legal principles governing the burden of proof. (Para 40 , 44 , 47) |
JUDGMENT :
SOURENDRA PANDEY, J.
1. We have heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Anshuman Singh, learned Senior Standing counsel for the respondent (D.R.I.).
2. The present appeals arise out of the judgment and order of conviction dated 02.02.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’) and the order of sentence dated 10.02.2023 (in short referred to as the ‘impugned order’) passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-XXVI, Patna in Special Case No. 128 of 2017, arising out of DRI Case No. DRI/LZU/PRU/718(II)ENQ222017 dated 30.08.2017 14/2017-18.
3. By the impugned judgment dated 02.02.2023 the appellants namely Sunil Kumar and Ali Ahamad have been convicted for the offences under Section 21 (C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance
The court upheld the convictions under the N.D.P.S. Act due to established constructive possession of heroin, emphasizing the validity of procedures followed during the search and seizure.
Compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act is essential for conviction; however, the absence of independent witnesses does not automatically discredit credible police testimony.
The court upheld the conviction under the NDPS Act, establishing that procedural compliance and evidence corroborate guilt for possession of contraband.
Procedural lapses in evidence collection under the NDPS Act, particularly failure to comply with Section 52A, render prosecution's case insufficient for conviction.
In drug-related offenses, strict adherence to statutory procedural safeguards is mandatory for a fair trial, and non-compliance vitiates the prosecution 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....
The court affirmed that possession of contraband substances establishes statutory presumptions requiring defendants to prove lack of conscious possession under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Sub....
The prosecution must prove possession of narcotics beyond a reasonable doubt, and any procedural lapses do not necessarily invalidate the trial if evidence remains intact.
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
