Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
Monser Ali, S/o. Late Hashem Ali – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam Rep. By The P.P. – Respondent
JUDGEMENT :
(SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J.)
This appeal is preferred challenging the judgment and order dated 01.03.2023 and 02.03.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, Goalpara in connection with Special Case No. 14/2022 arising out of Goalpara Police Station Case No. 78/2022 (GR Case No. 378/2022), convicting Manser Ali (hereinafter also referred to as the accused or the appellant) under Section 22 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act for short) and, sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 (Ten) years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac) with default stipulation.
2. The case in brief is that on 28.03.2022 at about 5.50 pm, during a naka checking at Bhalukdubi (Goalpara - Agia Road), the appellant was approaching from Goalpara towards Agia in a vehicle of Maruti 800 make, bearing registration No. AS-18D/8110. This vehicle was stopped and searched and three boxes containing 432 SPAS-TRANCAN capsules (Tramadol - a psychotropic substance) was recovered, concealed under the driver’s seat. The boxes of capsules were seized and an FIR was lodged and registered as Goalpara Police Station Case No. 78/2022 under Section 22 (b)
The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly in serious offences, failing which the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
The prosecution's failure to adhere to mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act led to serious discrepancies, resulting in the acquittal of the accused.
The court affirmed that possession of contraband substances establishes statutory presumptions requiring defendants to prove lack of conscious possession under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Sub....
The judgment establishes that non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act is a critical flaw that can invalidate a narcotics conviction.
The conviction was set aside due to non-compliance with mandatory procedures under the NDPS Act, specifically Section 52A regarding the presence of a Magistrate during sampling.
Non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act and contradictions in evidence undermine the prosecution's case, leading to the reversal of conviction.
The prosecution must establish possession of contraband beyond reasonable doubt, and procedural lapses do not invalidate the trial if essential elements are proven.
Mandatory compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act is essential for the validity of evidence in narcotics cases, and failure to adhere to this provision can lead to the dismissal of charges.
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
