Back
MARLI VANKUNG
Zorampari, D/o. Lalrinliana (L. ) – Appellant
Versus
State of Mizoram Aizawl – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. Jonathan Lalrintluanga, learned counsel for the appellant along with Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.
2. This appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C., 1973 r/w Section 36B of ND&PS Act, 1985 is against the Judgment & Order dated 29.06.2022 and the Sentence Order dated 01.07.2022, passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, ND&PS Act, Aizawl in SR No. 88/2019 Ref: Special Narcotics P.S. Case No. 4/2019 under Section 21 (c) ND&PS Act, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for another 1 year.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 13.02.2019, an FIR was submitted to the Officer-in-charge, Special Narcotic Police Station, CID (Crime), Aizawl to the effect that on 13.02.2019, the informant received information of some persons were seen within the area of Chawnpui, Aizawl strongly suspected of committing an offence under the provision of ND&PS Act, 1985.The O.C. Narcotic P.S. was informed and the informant was authorized to enquire into the matter. On enquiring into the matter, the informan
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 burden of proof shifts to the accused to prove his innocence once the prosecution establishes the possession of contraband substances and compliance with the ND&PS Act provisions.
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....
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.
The standard of proof for possession under the NDPS Act requires both physical control and knowledge of the substance, which was upheld despite procedural lapses.
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....
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
