Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Rakesh Kainthla
State of H.P. – Appellant
Versus
Pardeep Kumar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14.08.2013 passed by learned Special Judge, Kullu, District Kullu (learned Trial Court) vide which the respondents (accused before learned Trial Court) were acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Section 20 read with Section 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act (hereinafter referred to as ND&PS Act) and Section 25 of ARMS ACT . (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the police presented a challan against the accused before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Section 20 read with Section 29 of ND&PS Act and Section 25 of the ARMS ACT . It was asserted that Inspector Mahesh Kumar (PW13), ASI Mukesh Kumar (PW11), HC Jawala Singh and Constable Tarsem Lal (PW12) were present at a distance of 2 kms from Chharod Nala bridge towards Manikaran on 08.05.2010 in the official vehicle bearing registration No. HP34A-9986 which was being driven by Constable Baldev Singh. A vehicl
The High Court affirmed that, in chance recovery cases, compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act is not mandatory, reinforcing the credibility of police testimony despite the absence of independent....
NDPS conviction upheld in chance recovery despite hostile independent witness and minor official contradictions; non-association of independents not fatal; case property integrity via intact seals; S....
The absence of independent witnesses does not invalidate the prosecution's case if police testimonies are credible, and Section 50 of the NDPS Act is not applicable when recovery is from a bag.
The conviction under the NDPS Act was upheld based on credible police testimonies, despite minor discrepancies, establishing the integrity of the case property.
In appeals against acquittal, the appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and only intervene when the trial court's findings demonstrate clear legal error or perverse reasoning.
Court established the necessity of presenting case property in NDPS cases; failure to do so can undermine prosecution credibility and convictions.
The court held that the prosecution's reliance on police witnesses is valid despite absence of independent witnesses, emphasizing that procedural defects in sample collection did not automatically in....
The principles relating to interference by the High Court in appeals against acquittal are well settled. While High Court can review entire evidence and reach its own conclusions, it will not interfe....
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
