Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR, JJ
Krishna Mundu, S/o Late Aachu Mundu – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
I.A. No. 13656 of 2024:
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section 430(1) of the B NSS, 2023 for keeping the sentence in abeyance in connection with the judgment of conviction dated 02.08.2022 and order of sentence dated 05.08.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge NDPS at Khunti in Saiko P.S. Case No. 04 of 2019, corresponding to NDPS Case No. 10 of 2019, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 12 years and a fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 18(b) of theNDPS Act.
2. It has been contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that it is a case where without following the mandatory requirement as laid under the statute, the appellant has been convicted. Such argument has been made based upon the fact that the provision regarding the search and seizure has not been followed.
3. Further, the measurement taken said to be not proper and is not based upon the statutory provision.
4. The learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that therefore it is a fit case for suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal
Compliance with statutory procedures during search and seizure is essential for maintaining the integrity of evidence in drug-related offenses.
Procedural irregularities in sampling under the N.D.P.S Rules do not negate the validity of seizure and testing if properly conducted.
The court upheld the conviction under the NDPS Act, emphasizing compliance with statutory provisions and the sufficiency of evidence linking the appellant to the crime.
Proper procedures under the NDPS Act and Rules must be followed for valid seizure and sampling; lapses can lead to benefit of doubt for the accused.
Doubts in the prosecution's case regarding the seizure of contraband justified the suspension of the appellant's sentence.
The court affirmed that minor contradictions in prosecution testimony do not undermine a conviction under the NDPS Act, emphasizing the reliability of police witness statements.
Point of Law : Statement under Section 67 cannot be relied upon but herein, Court are not considering to rely upon statement under Section 67 of NDPS Act, thus judgment is also not applicable in this....
The location of contraband recovery outside a residence creates grounds for suspension of sentence under the N.D.P.S. Act when it raises questions about culpability.
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
