Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Bijoy Roy, Son of Bijen Roy – Appellant
Versus
Union of India through Intelligence Officer D.R.I., Regional Unit, Patna Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants. No one appears on behalf of the respondent.
2. The present appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction dated 09.12.2020 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’) and the order of sentence dated 14.12.2020 (in short referred to as the ‘impugned order’) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XXV-cum-Special Judge, Patna in Special Case No. 39 of 2017 arising out of DRI Unit Case No. 21 of 2016-2017 (State through the informant Ashok Kumar, Intelligence Officer, DRI, Regional Unit, Patna Vs. Litu Das & Others).
3. By the impugned judgment, the learned trial Court has convicted the appellants of the charges under Section 20 (b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the ‘N.D.P.S. Act’), the appellants have been, however acquitted of the charges under Sections 23 , 25 and 29(1) of the N.D.P.S. Act. The learned trial Court has awarded a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 12 years and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-(one lakh) each for the offences committed under (b)(ii)(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act. In default of payment of fine, each accused shall u
Possession under the NDPS Act requires substantive evidence directly linking the accused to the contraband, with inadmissibility of confessions made to officers under specific provisions of the Evide....
Confessional statements made to officers under the NDPS Act are inadmissible, and mere dock identification is insufficient for conviction.
Confessional statements to officers under the NDPS Act are inadmissible as evidence, and bail must be granted if there is insufficient evidence against the accused.
Confessional statements made to officers under the NDPS Act are barred by Section 25 of the Evidence Act, rendering them inadmissible for prosecution purposes, thus affecting the grounds for bail.
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 ....
Seizure of Ganja – Once foundational facts are proved, statutory presumption under Section 54 of NDPS Act legitimately operates against accused.
In NDPS cases, once the prosecution establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the accused to explain possession of the narcotic substance.
The absence of support from independent witnesses does not invalidate the prosecution's case if corroborated by credible evidence from law enforcement officials.
The court affirmed that possession of 201 kilograms of ganja established under the NDPS Act sufficed for conviction, confirming that procedural safeguards were adhered to despite the absence of indep....
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
