Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
A.Guneshwar Sharma
State of Manipur represented by the Chief Secretary (Home) – Appellant
Versus
Mohammad Hussain @ Thoiba – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details on the drug seizure and arrests. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. grounds for discharge of the accused. (Para 8) |
| 3. prosecution's arguments on jurisdiction. (Para 10 , 14) |
| 4. analysis of trial court's errors. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. ingredients of offences established. (Para 30 , 31 , 32) |
JUDGMENT :
A. Guneshwar Sharma, J.
1. Heard Mr. M. Devananda, learned Addl. A.G. assisted by Ms. Jyotsana, learned counsel for the petitioners/State; Mr. HS. Paonam, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Lekhakumari, Advocate; Mr. L. Shashibhushan, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Kangungailui Kamei, Advocate; Mr. S. Jhalajit, learned counsel; and Mr. H. Nabakumar, learned counsel for the respondents/accused persons.
2. Vide order dated 29.04.2024 in SLP(Crl.) No. 1536 of 2024 filed by the respondent/accused No.2 herein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court desired this Court to decide the revision petition filed by the State against the discharge order as expeditiously as possible and in any case, by the end of May, 2024. Accordingly, this case was listed on 30.05.2024 for pronouncement of judgment. However, due to sudden flash flood in Manipur, there were no court sittings on 30 & 31 May, 2024 and
In narcotic drug cases, subsequent procedural non-compliance and shifting of occurrence location do not preclude ongoing trials; mandatory provisions of NDPS Act must be adhered to but are contextual....
wherever a Court comes to conclusion that the process of Court is being abuses, the Court would be justified in refusing to proceed further and refused the party from pursuing the remedy in law.
Strict compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 42(1) and 42(2) of the NDPS Act is required, and the prosecution must establish the accused's conscious possession of the contraband.
The prosecution established the appellant's conscious possession of narcotics, validating the conviction despite procedural non-compliance, as substantial evidence supported the case.
Criminal proceedings require substantial, corroborative evidence, and charge framing must reflect judicial application rather than mechanical adherence to procedural norms under the NDPS Act.
The prosecution's failure to follow mandatory procedures for search and seizure under the NDPS Act vitiated the trial, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
The prosecution must comply with mandatory procedural requirements in drug cases, failing which foundational facts required to establish guilt cannot be met, leading to acquittal.
The recovery of contraband from a public place does not require compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act, and the presumption of conscious possession under Section 54 places the burden of proof on ....
Non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act vitiates the conviction, especially where the prosecution relies solely on police testimony without corroboration from independent witness....
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
