Back
MARLI VANKUNG
Lalpekhlui – Appellant
Versus
State of Mizoram – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
MARLI VANKUNG, J.
1. Heard Mr. Lalpianfela Chawngthu, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
2. This is an appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the impugned Judgment and Order dated 18.02.2019 passed by the Special Court, ND&PS Act, 1985, Champhai, Mizoram in Session Registration No. 1351/2017 arising out of Crl. Tr. No. 1266/2017, by which the appellant was convicted under Section 21(b) ND&PS Act and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 8 (eight) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- on default Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 (one) month.
3. The brief facts of the case is that on 23.06.2017 at around 5:45 p.m. Champhai Excise and Narcotics under the command of Sub-Inspector Mr. J. Laltlanmawia while performing random checking at Mualkawi, and while checking one of the Maxi cabs had seized 212.6 grams of heroin kept in 15 soap cases from the bag of Mrs. Lalpekhlui, 23 years of age, daughter of Mr. Thanliana, Permanent resident of Tahan, Myanmar. On her arrest by Champhai Excise and Narcotics a case vide Excise Case No. EXN-112/17/17/CPI dated 24.06.2017 under Section 21 (b) ND&PS Act was agai
It would be risky and impermissible to leave the samples with the special messenger for a long gap of time. Chances of tampering when there is lack of evidence about the safe custody of the sample pa....
Point of law : NDPS Act – Appeal against conviction -It would be risky and impermissible to leave the samples with the special messenger for a long gap of time. Chances of tampering when there is lac....
The prosecution must prove foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt; discrepancies in evidence can lead to acquittal.
Conviction under the Act requires the prosecution to prove foundational facts, including valid search, conscious possession, and an unbroken chain of custody, beyond reasonable doubt. Failure to comp....
The burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and adherence to statutory duties is crucial in proving the case against the accused.
The prosecution must comply with procedures outlined in the NDPS Act; failure to do so results in the benefit of doubt for the accused.
The appellant's admission of conscious possession and the procedural regularity of the seizure influenced the court's decision.
Point of Law : Burden is always upon prosecution to prove the case against the person accused with proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The court ruled that procedural lapses under the NDPS Act invalidated the conviction, emphasizing that non-compliance with Section 52A merits the benefit of doubt for the accused.
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
