Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
NARESH KUMAR CHANDRAVANSHI
Vijay Kumar Vishwakarma, S/o. Dashrath Kumar Vishwakarma – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer – 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 01.12.2022 passed by learned Special Judge (NDPS) Act, Jagdalpur, District Bastar in Special Criminal Case (NDPS Act) No. 10/2021, 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 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for one year.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 24.08.2020, Assistant Sub-Inspector – Harwan Singh (P.W. 9) of Police Station Nagarnar received information from an informant that a twelve-wheeler Truck bearing registration No. R.J. 09/G.D./2253 is transporting contraband substance Ganja illegally from Odisa to Jagdalpur 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 wer
Conviction under NDPS Act overturned due to significant procedural lapses and discrepancies in evidence handling, resulting in reasonable doubt.
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.
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 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 prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, especially in drug-related offenses, where compliance with mandatory procedures is crucial.
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
