SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Chh) 672

RAVINDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL
Kamlesh Jaiswal S/o Late Shyam Sunder Jaiswal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh, Through SHO Patna District Korea – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Ms. Indira Tripathi, Advocate Mr. Shailendra Dubey, Advocate Ms. Shivali Duibey, Advocate Mr. Vikas Pradhan, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey, Govt. Advocate

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, especially in drug-related offenses, with emphasis on compliance with mandatory procedures (!) (!) . - The sampling procedure and compliance with NDPS Act provisions (including Section 52-A verification, sampling from packets, and identification), and the status of independent witnesses are central to the conviction’s validity (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Independent witnesses were hostile or turned, casting doubt on search and seizure, weakening the prosecution’s case and leading to acquittal on appeal (!) (!) . - The weighing, sampling, and labeling issues (S-1/S-2 markings, Lot sampling, and Standing Order 1/89 compliance) were critical to the court’s reasoning for overturning the conviction (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The appeals resulted in setting aside the trial court’s conviction, acquitting the appellants, and directing their release and fresh compliance actions under Cr.P.C. provisions (!) (!) . - The evidence about the chain of custody, panchnamas, and Malkhana entries were scrutinized and found lacking in persuasiveness for upholding a conviction (!) (!) (!) .

What is the standard of proof required beyond reasonable doubt in NDPS cases as applied to this appeal?

What are the mandatory procedural compliances under the NDPS Act that must be proven for a conviction, and were they satisfied in this case?

What is the court's conclusion regarding the credibility of independent witnesses and the sampling procedure in relation to the seized ganja?


ORDER :

Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.

1. Both these appeals are arising out of the same crime number and the same sessions trial, therefore both are being heard and decided together.

2. Both these criminal appeals are filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment of conviction and the sentence dated 21.10.2022, passed by learned Special Judge (Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985), Baikunthpur, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh, in Special Criminal Case No. 7 of 2020, whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called as ‘NDPS Act’) and sentenced for R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs. 1 lakh to each of the appellants, in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment for 6 months.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 01.03.2020, a secret information was received by the police of Police Station Patna, District Korea, that a white colour Scorpio vehicle bearing No. CG-16/CL-8964 coming from Surajpur to Baikunthpur having loaded with Ganja. The witnesses were being called and secret information Panchn

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          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

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
          whatsapp-icon Back to top