State of Haryana Vs. Asha Devi and Anr.
|
Head Note
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 20 , Section 50
Search and seizure - Recovery of 11 kgs. of ganja - Independent Witness - Non-examination - Both the DSP as well as I.O. have deposed that public persons were available when the contraband was seized; however, none of the public person acceded to their request of joining the investigation as an independent witness - Courts below have found it unbelievable but no reason for same is rendered - Held that the consistent statement of both the DSP as well as I.O. rather enhances the veracity of the circumstances as put forth by them - Finding of the Courts below that accused 'O' could not have fled away after scaling the wall and the police constables would have failed to catch hold of him held to be based on assumption and conjecture - There is nothing in the evidence which could show that 'O' could not have run away - There are positive statements by several prosecution witnesses that he ran away on seeing the police party and these statements have withstood the test of cross examination as well - Further, no other evidence led to disprove the fact of running away of accused Om Prakash - High Court and the Trial Court were not correct in arriving at the said finding.
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 20 , Section 50
Search and seizure - Recovery of 11 kgs. of ganja - Sample - Link Evidence - All the persons who possessed the contraband sample brought on record to support that no tampering was done with the samples - Defence failed to bring out anything in the cross-examination of the witnesses with respect to tampering of the samples - Held that the samples were properly dealt with throughout and the same was found to be Ganja - With respect to the seal that was handed over to ASI the Defence failed to cross-examine the I.O as to how did he got possession of seal back from ASI - Under these circumstances the prosecution was not duty bound to explain the movement of the seal from one person to another in the given circumstances - Since, the movement of sample has been proved and found to be regular, the prosecution has sufficiently proved its case to establish the guilt of the accused in the present case - Impugned Judgment/order of acquittal by the Courts below liable to be set aside - Since the accused are in possession of small quantity as per the Notification of the Central Government the accused persons convicted under Section 20 of the NDPS Act and sentenced to simple imprisonment for five years.
Topic(s)-NDPS - Independent Witness - Non-examination - Conviction