IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
Smt. Malti Devi W/o Shri Sukhdev Choudhury – Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India – Respondent
Crl. Appeal No. 141 of 2020
Decided On : 10-02-2023
NDPS Act - Section 36 – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Sections 372(2) and 313 - Appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment - Challenge judgment and order - Collected consignment - Closing prosecution evidence - Examined accused - Prosecution side has examined as many as witnesses in support of its case - Held, Court find that appellant has failed to demonstrate that prosecution side could not establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Instead it transpires that prosecution side has succeeded in establishing charge section 21(C) of NDPS Act against appellant beyond all reasonable doubt - It is apparent that court below has rightly appreciated and record and arrived at a reasoned finding - Indisputably quantity of contraband substance recovered from possession of accused is of commercial quantity - Court below has imposed minimum punishment of years and a fine of amount with default stipulation - And having regards to the nature and gravity of offence specially antecedent of appellant sentence so handed down appears to be reasonable and justified and it warrants no interference of this court – Appeal Dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
1. Heard Mr. M.K. Das, learned counsel for the appellant and also heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, for the respondent, Narcotic Control Bureau (NCB).
2. In this appeal, under section 372(2) Cr.P.C. read with section 36 of the NDPS Act, the appellant-Smt. Malti Devi, has put to challenge the judgment and order, dated 14.08.2017, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, No. 1, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati, in NDPS Case No. 16(1)/2015, under Section 21(C) of the NDPS Act. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment and order, the learned court below has sentenced the appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year.
3. The factual background, leading to filing of the present appeal, under section 372(2) of the Cr.P.C. read with section 36 of the NDPS Act is briefly stated as under:
Kamaljit Singh @ Papu vs. State of Punjab
Mukesh Singh vs. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi)
Rizwan Khan vs. State of Chhattisgarh
State of H.P. vs. Pradeep Kumar
State of Rajasthan vs. Sahi Ram
Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu
T. Pal Kuki vs. State of West Bengal
The mandatory procedural requirements under Section 52A of the NDPS Act must be strictly followed, and failure to do so can result in the reversal of a conviction due to insufficient evidence of cons....
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.
Procedural lapses in evidence collection under the NDPS Act, particularly failure to comply with Section 52A, render prosecution's case insufficient for conviction.
Strict compliance with statutory provisions under the NDPS Act is essential for upholding convictions; failure to produce seized contraband and lack of proper inventory preparation undermines the pro....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.