Back
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Shri Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Nabin Manjhi S/o Late Rama Manjhi – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer – Respondent
Judgment :
(Ramesh Sinha, CJ.)
1. Today, though the matter is listed for hearing on I.A.No. 02/2023, which is an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant, however, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, (for short the, Cr.P.C.) against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 17.07.2023, passed by learned Special Judge under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Sustances Act, Kawardha, District - Kabirdham (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case under the NDPS Act No. 403/2020 whereby the learned Special Judge has convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “the NDPS Act”) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 11 years with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for one year.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 01-02-2020, Assistant Sub-Inspector Panchram Verma posted at Police Station Chilpi received information from an informer th
The prosecution must prove possession of narcotics beyond reasonable doubt, and procedural lapses do not automatically invalidate a conviction if credible evidence supports the case.
Possession of narcotic substances can result in conviction under NDPS despite procedural non-compliance if evidentiary strength supports prosecution's claims.
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.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of strict compliance with the procedural provisions of the NDPS Act, particularly Section 52A(2), (3) and (4), for seizure and s....
Failure to comply with mandatory procedures under the NDPS Act vitiates conviction, necessitating primary evidence for a valid trial.
Non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act, requiring samples to be drawn and certified by a Magistrate, vitiates the trial as it fails to produce primary evidence.
Non-compliance with mandatory procedures under the NDPS Act leads to vitiation of conviction, requiring strict adherence to evidence collection protocols.
The prosecution established the appellant's conscious possession of narcotics, validating the conviction despite procedural non-compliance, as substantial evidence supported the case.
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
