IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, RAKESH KAINTHLA, JJ.
Sanjay Tomar - Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 101 of 2020
Decided on : 22-05-2024
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31.12.2019, passed by learned Special Judge, Chamba, Division Chamba, H.P, vide which the appellant (accused before the learned Trial Court) was convicted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘NDPS Act’) and order dated 14.01.2020, vide which he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and pay a fine of ₹1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the commission of the aforesaid offence. (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 an offence punishable under Section 21 read with Section 8A of the NDPS Act. It was asserted that HC-Virender Singh (PW11) was present in the office of Special Investigating Unit (SIU) at around 4:00 pm on 05.03.2018, when he received a secret information that the accused had taken a room on rent at Udaipur from Sourav Boss (PW1). The accused had brought injections and capsules of psychotropic substance and he was selling them to the school and college going students. The information was reduced to writing. An entry (Ext. PW3/A) was recorded in the police station. A copy of the entry was sent to the Superintendent of Police, Chamba through Constable-Sanjay Kumar (PW7). HC-Virender Singh also apprised the Superintendent of Police, Chamba about the information telephonically, who directed him to associate some lady constable from Sultanpur Police Post. HC-Virender Singh (PW11), HC-Sanjay Kumar (PW5), HHC-Mohammad Aslam (PW6), HHC-Manohar Lal, Constable-Sunil Kumar, Constable- Sanjay Kumar, Constable-Upinder Chona and Constable-Dinesh Kumar went to Udaipur in an ofÏcial vehicle b earing Registration No. HP-73-8754 and a private vehicle bearing Registration No.HP-73-3025 along with an I.O. ba g, weighing scale and official camera. HC-Virender Singh informed the Police Post, Sultanpur to send a lady constable as per the directions of the Superintendent of Police. Constable-Sanjeepa Devi met the police party at Udaipur. She was also associated with the police party. The police party went to the house of Sourav Boss, who was found present in his home. They went to the room of the accused where he was present. The search of the room of the accused was conducted in the presence of Sourav Boss. One carton containing 85 packets each containing 10 injections of Pentalab Lactate Injections and two carry bags containing 124 packets each containing 24 capsules of Spasmo Proxyvon Plus Capsules were recovered during the search. The accused could not produce any permit for keeping the capsules and the injections. The injections and capsules were put in the carton and carry bags in the same manner, in which they were recovered. ₹ 34,000/- were also found kept beneath the carry bag. These were put in a cloth parcel and the parcel was sealed with 10 seals of seal ‘CF’. The seal impression (Ext. PW1/A) was taken on a separate piece of cloth. NCB-I form (Ext. PW11/A) was filled in triplicate. A seal impression was put on the form. The seal was handed over to Sourav Boss after the use. The cloth parcel, NCB-I form, sample seal and currency notes were seized vide memo (Ext. PW1/B). HC-Sanjay Kumar took the photographs of the proceedings (Ext. PW5/A and Ext. PW5/B). HC-Virender Singh (PW11) prepared the rukka (Ext. PW6/A) and handed it over to HC- Mohammad Aslam (PW6) with a direction to carry it to the police station. A copy was also handed over to him for delivery to the Superintendent of Police, Chamba. FIR (Ext. PW16/A) was registered in the Police Station. S.I. Subhash Kumar (PW19) conducted the further investig
Muthu Naicker and Others etc Versus State of T.N.
Tahsildar Singh v. State of U.P.
Anjan Ganguly & Ors. Versus State of West Bengal
State of Karnataka v. Bhaskar Kushali Kothakar & Ors.
Kalabhai Hamirbhai Kachhot vs State of Gujarat
Bihari Nath Goswami v. Shiv Kumar Singh
Mahendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P.
Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) v. State of Maharashtra
Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra
AI
The absence of independent witnesses does not invalidate the prosecution case, and minor discrepancies in police testimonies do not undermine their credibility.
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 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 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....
The court confirmed convictions under the NDPS Act, emphasizing strict standards of evidence and the presumption of guilt regarding drug possession, while minor discrepancies in testimonies were deem....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.