IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
Mandel Lalthlangama Durpui S/o T.T. Vela Durpui – Appellant
Versus
The State of Assam – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 30, 35 of 2022
Decided On : 25-09-2023
Criminal Procedure Code,1973 – Section 313 – NDPS Act – Sections 22(a)/22(c) – Drugs items – Possession – Appeal against Conviction – Challenged – Held, Court find that after recovery of contraband substances officer concerned i.e. PW-4 never approached Magistrate for certifying the correctness of inventory, certifying photographs of such drugs or substance taken before Magistrate as true and for grant of permission to draw representative sample so drawn in his presence – Learned court below has totally ignored this aspect in impugned judgment – Impugned judgment and order, so passed by learned court below, has failed to withstand legal scrutiny and on such count it requires interference of this court – Appellants are entitled to be acquitted of both charges on benefit of doubt – Appeals allowed
JUDGMENT :
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
1. Heard Mr. J. Laskar, learned counsel for both the appellant and Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Addl. P.P. for the State respondent.
2. As the Criminal Appeal No. 30/2022 and Criminal Appeal No. 35/2022 both are directed against the common judgment and order dated 05.01.2022 and as common questions of law are involved in both the appeals and common arguments advanced, and as agreed by the learned Advocates of both sides, it is decided to dispose of both these appeals by this common judgment and order.
3. In Criminal Appeal No. 30/2022, appellant, Sri Mandel Lalthlangama Durpari and in Criminal Appeal No. 35/2022, appellant Sri Lienkhokhai Changsan, have challenged the correctness or otherwise of the judgment and order, dated 05.01.2022, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dima Hasao, Haflong in Sessions Special Case No. 66/2018, under sections 22(a)/22(c) of the NDPS Act. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment and order, dated 05.01.2022, the learned Sessions Judge, Dima Hasao, Haflong has convicted the appellant under sections 22(a)/22(c) of the NDPS Act, and thereafter, sentenced both of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 01 year, under section 22(a) of the NDPS Act, and rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and also to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- with default stipulation, under section 22(C) of the NDPS Act, and further directed that both the sentence will run concurrently.
4. The background fact, leading to filing of these appeals, is adumbrated herein-below:
Accordingly, both the accused were produced before the learned Court below. Thereafter, hearing learned Advocates of both sides, the learned Court below had framed charges against both the appellants under sections 22(a)/22(C) NPDS Act, and on being read over the charges to the appellants, they pleaded not guilty. Then the prosecution side has examined as many as six witnesses in support of its case. Two more witnesses were also examined as Court witness on behalf of the Court. Thereafter, the learned Court below had examined the appellants under section 313 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, hearing arguments of learned Advocates of both sides, the learned Court bel
State of Punjab vs. Baljinder Singh and Another
S.K. Raju @ Abdul Hoque @ Jagga vs. State of West Bengal
The conviction under the NDPS Act was quashed due to failure to comply with mandatory procedures for sample collection, emphasizing the importance of due process in narcotics cases.
The conviction was set aside due to non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, specifically Section 52A, undermining the prosecution's case.
The conviction was quashed due to failure to comply with mandatory procedures for evidence collection under the NDPS Act, emphasizing the importance of a fair trial.
Mandatory compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act is essential for the validity of evidence in drug cases, and its violation can lead to the dismissal of charges.
The prosecution's failure to follow mandatory procedures for search and seizure under the NDPS Act vitiated the trial, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act and contradictions in witness testimonies can raise doubt about the veracity of the prosecution's case, leading to acquittal on benefit of dou....
When directions are issued by an authority having the legal sanction granted therefor, it becomes obligatory on the part of the subordinate authorities to comply therewith.
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.