Back
SANJAY K.AGRAWAL, SANJAY S.AGRAWAL
Chandrabhan Yadav, S/o Jagdhari Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Chandrabhan Yadav - sole appellant in Cr.A.No.199/2019; three appellants in Cr.A.No.667/2019 namely Vijay Agrahari, Ramkaran Verma & Smt. Kanchan Bai; and Rakesh Verma - sole appellant in Cr.A.No.235/2019 have preferred these three criminal appeals under Section 374(2) of the CrPC against their conviction by the impugned judgment dated 19-12-2018 by which they have been convicted for offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘the NDPS Act’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eleven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,10,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years.
2. Since all the three criminal appeals have arisen out of one and same judgment dated 19-12-2018 passed by the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Surguja (Ambikapur), District Surguja, in one Special Criminal (NDPS) Case No.10/2015 and since common question of fact and law is involved in all the three appeals, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
3. All the five appellants in three appeals were charged for the offence under Sec
The prosecution must establish conscious possession beyond reasonable doubt in NDPS cases.
Conscious possession must be established for conviction under the NDPS Act; mere proximity to contraband is insufficient.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of 'conscious possession' and the significance of animus or intent in establishing possession of contraband under the NDPS Act.
Possession of narcotics requires no personal search compliance under Section 50 when found during public checks; evidence established conscious possession leads to conviction under the NDPS Act.
The court found the accused guilty of possession of Ganja based on consistent evidence from witnesses and dismissed the appeal.
The prosecution's burden to prove the recovery of contraband from the accused, the presumption under Section 35, and the link between the contraband and the accused were central legal principles esta....
Non-compliance with mandatory provisions under the NDPS Act does not vitiate the trial but renders the recovery suspect. The burden of proving a satisfactory explanation for possession lies with the ....
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
