Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
NARESH KUMAR CHANDRAVANSHI
Ashish Kumar Pandey, S/o Sashi Kumar Pandey – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.12.2022 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, NDPS Act, South Bastar – Dantewada (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case (NDPS Act) No. 33/2019, whereby appellant has been convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (henceforth, 'NDPS Act') and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years withfine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for 500 days.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 21.06.2019, Station House Officer – Praveen Minj (PW-8) of Pushpal Police Station received information from an informant that a Truck bearing registration No. M.P. 09 H.G. 5134 is transporting contraband substance ganja from Padamgiri, Odisha to Sukuma unauthorizedly for sale. The said secret information was recorded in rojnamcha sanha. The intimation about secret information was sent to Senior Officers. Two independent witnesses
Prosecution must adhere to strict evidential procedures in NDPS Act cases; failure undermines the conviction. In this case, inconsistencies in evidence and chain of custody led to acquittal.
Conviction under NDPS Act overturned due to significant procedural lapses and discrepancies in evidence handling, resulting in reasonable doubt.
The failure to comply with procedural requirements of the NDPS Act, particularly regarding evidence handling and sample collection, undermines the prosecution's case and grounds for conviction.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, especially in drug-related offenses, where compliance with mandatory procedures is crucial.
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....
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 court emphasized the necessity for strict adherence to procedural safeguards in drug-related cases, ruling that non-compliance rendered the prosecution's case unsustainable.
Strict adherence to procedural requirements in the NDPS Act is essential for securing convictions; failure to follow these mandates can lead to acquittal.
The prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against the accused under the NDPS Act due to non-compliance with statutory requirements and lack of credible evidence.
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
