Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
Lalzuineihsial and Anr. S/o Suta Neihsial – Appellant
Versus
State of Mizoram – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of the case and procedural background. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. arguments presented by the defense and prosecution. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. court’s observations, analysis, and application of legal principles. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 4. court's determination on the guilt of the accused. (Para 38) |
| 5. final judgment and order affirming conviction. (Para 39 , 40 , 41) |
UDGMENT :
KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J.
1. Heard Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel for the accused appellants. Also heard Ms. Linda, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mizoram for the State respondents.
2. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 19.07.2022 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, ND&PS, Aizawl, Mizoram in S.R. No. 285/2018 arising out of Excise & Narcotics Case No. N-172/2018, whereby the appellants were convicted for offence punishable under Section 21 (c) of the ND&PS Act, 1985 and the impugned sentence dated 20.07.2022 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 (ten) years with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lakh) and failure to pay the fine, to
Possession of contraband under ND&PS Act establishes statutory presumptions, burden shifts to accused to rebut claims, mere denial insufficient to challenge prosecution evidence.
The appellant's admission of conscious possession and the procedural regularity of the seizure influenced the court's decision.
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.
The court upheld the conviction for drug possession, affirming that the prosecution's burden of establishing conscious possession was met by the accused's own admissions despite procedural lapses.
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.
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had exclusive possession of contraband; procedural irregularities can undermine the case.
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
