SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(HP) 430

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
 

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Hemant Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Varun Chandel, Additional Advocate General.

Compliance with procedural requirements under the NDPS Act is crucial for the integrity of the evidence, and minor discrepancies in witness testimonies do not diminish the prosecution's case if the evidence as a whole remains credible.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Section 21 - Conviction of accused for possession of commercial quantity of psychotropic substances - Recovery from rented accommodation without independent witnesses - Compliance with Section 42 of NDPS Act established - Minor contradictions in witness testimonies do not undermine prosecution case - Sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of ₹1,00,000/- upheld. (Paras 1, 6, 60, 62)

(B) Evidence - Witness credibility - Minor discrepancies in testimonies of witnesses do not warrant rejection of their evidence if they inspire confidence and are consistent with prosecution’s narrative. (Paras 26, 32, 34)

(C) Criminal Procedure - Recording of witness statements - Previous statements of witnesses must be properly proved for contradictions to be admissible. (Paras 22, 24, 30)

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top