Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Michael Zothankhuma, N. Unni Krishnan Nair
Lalfakawma College Veng, Aizawl, Mizoram – Appellant
Versus
State of Mizoram Aizawl – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Michael Zothankhuma, J.
Heard Mr. H. Zodinsanga, learned Amicus Curiae and Ms. Vanneihsiami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.
2. This is an appeal against the judgment and Order dated 23.09.2022 passed by the Special Court, ND&PS Act, Aizawl in S.R. No. 238/2018 arising out of Crl. Tx. Ex. No 1623/2018, by which the appellant has been convicted u/s 21 (c) ND&PS Act and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 12 years with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default Rigorous Imprisonment for another 1 year.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that the Sub-Inspector of the Special Narcotics Police Station, CID (Crime) submitted an FIR dated 11.06.2018, stating that he had received information that some persons were suspected of committing an offence under the ND&PS Act, 1985 in the New Market area of Dawrpui. In this regard, Information Report was immediately submitted to the Officer-in-Charge of the Special Narcotics Police Station, who immediately issued authorization letter u/s 41(2) of the ND&PS Act, authorizing the informant to inquire into the matter.
4. The informant immediately proceeded towards the New Market area, Dawrpui and requested two per
The court affirmed that once possession of narcotics is established, the accused must prove lack of knowledge regarding the substance's illicit nature, as per Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act.
(1) Presumption from possession of illicit articles – Unless and until contrary is proved in trial of cases involving offences coming within purview of NDPS Act, it may be presumed that accused has c....
Conscious possession must be established by prosecution in narcotics cases, shifting burden to the accused to explain possession; minor discrepancies do not negate the prosecution’s case.
The court upheld the conviction for transporting opium, establishing conscious possession based on the substantial quantity found and the appellant's control over the vehicle.
No one can be convicted contrary to Law of Evidence.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove conscious possession of contraband and the application of presumption of culpable mental state unde....
Possession of contraband - Once possession is established, the person who claims that it was not a conscious possession has to establish it, because how he came to be in possession is within his spec....
Point of law: While upholding the constitutional validity of sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act, the Apex Court has, however, reiterated that more serious the offence, the stricter would be the degre....
The judgment emphasizes the presumption of possession under Section 54 of the ND&PS Act and the need for the accused to establish non-conscious possession in cases of illicit substance transportation....
Conscious possession must be established for conviction under the NDPS Act; mere proximity to contraband is insufficient.
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
