Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
Dharambir Thakur – Appellant
Versus
State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
1. In this appeal filed under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C., the accused persons, two in number, in Sessions Case No.2050/2016 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge-04 and Special Judge (NDPS), South-East District, Saket Courts, Delhi, challenge the judgement dated 27.02.2018 and order on sentence dated 28.02.2018, as per which they have been convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (the NDPS Act).
2. The prosecution case is that on 24.07.2012at 10:30 P.M.,both the accused persons were found in possession of 201 Kilograms of ganja in front of Suraj Apartment, Main Road, Suraj Kund-Prahladpur Road in a three wheeler bearing no. HR-38-T- 2626, which was driven by accused no.1(A1) and accused no. 2(A2) was sitting in the same with the bags containing ganja. Hence, as per the chargesheet/final report dated 08.12.2015, the accused persons are alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Sections 20 , 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act. 3. On appearance of the accused persons before the trial court, copies of all the prosecution documents were supplied to them in
The court affirmed that possession of 201 kilograms of ganja established under the NDPS Act sufficed for conviction, confirming that procedural safeguards were adhered to despite the absence of indep....
The court affirmed the conviction under the NDPS Act, emphasizing that procedural lapses do not invalidate the trial when no prejudice is demonstrated, and the prosecution established possession and ....
Seizure of Ganja – Once foundational facts are proved, statutory presumption under Section 54 of NDPS Act legitimately operates against accused.
The court affirmed that procedural compliance under the NDPS Act is essential, yet lapses may not void convictions if substantial evidence supports the prosecution's case.
As per section 55 of Act of 1985, police is required to take charge of articles seized or delivered and keep in safe custody pending order of Magistrate.
The prosecution failed to prove conscious possession under the NDPS Act beyond reasonable doubt due to procedural discrepancies and lack of independent witness corroboration.
The provisions contained in Chapter V are intended for providing certain checks on exercise of the powers of authority concerned and to avoid misuse and arbitrary exercise of the power, in absence of....
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
