Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Don't have an account? Register Here
<h1>Court upholds Narcotic Drugs Act validity but prosecution fails burden of proof. Confessions ruled inadmissible.</h1> <h3>NOOR AGA Versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.</h3> NOOR AGA Versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. - 2009 AIR 852, 2008 (10) SCR 379, 2008 (16) SCC 417, 2008 (7) JT 409, 2008 (9) SCALE 681 Issues Involved:1. Constitutional validity of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.2. Burden of proof on the prosecution vis-`a-vis the accused.3. Non-production of physical evidence.4. Non-examination of independent witnesses.5. Discrepancies in the statements of official witnesses.6. Admissibility of purported confessions.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Constitutional Validity of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985:The appellant challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 35 and 54 of the Act, arguing that they impose a reverse burden on the accused, contrary to Article 14(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. The court held that while presumption of innocence is a human right, it is not absolute and can be subject to statutory exceptions. The Act's stringent provisions are justified by the need to combat narcotic drug trafficking, aligning with international conventions. Therefore, the provisions of Sections 35 and 54 are not ultra vires the Constitution of India.2. Burden of Proof on the Prosecution vis-`a-vis the Accused:The court emphasized that the prosecution must establish foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt before the burden shifts to the accused. The heightened standard of proof is necessary due to the severe penalties under the Act. The court held that the prosecution failed to discharge its initial burden, thus failing to establish the foundational facts required to invoke the reverse burden under Sections 35 and 54.3. Non-production of Physical Evidence:The prosecution failed to produce essential physical evidence, including the cardboard carton, the bulk quantity of heroin, and the three samples taken from the bulk. The court noted that the cardboard carton was missing, and no convincing explanation was provided. The bulk quantity of heroin was allegedly destroyed without proper authorization, and the samples were not produced in court. The court held that non-production of physical evidence significantly undermines the prosecution's case and warrants drawing an adverse inference against the prosecution.4. Non-examination of Independent Witnesses:The prosecution did not examine the independent witnesses, Mahinder Singh and Yusuf, who were allegedly present during the search and seizure. The court held that the non-examination of these material witnesses, without any explanation, adversely affects the credibility of the prosecution's case. The court emphasized that the quality of evidence matters, and the failure to examine independent witnesses in a case with numerous discrepancies prejudices the appellant.5. Discrepancies in the Statements of Official Witnesses:The court noted several discrepancies in the statements of official witnesses regarding the search and seizure process. For instance, there were contradictions in the time of recovery and the handling of the samples. The court held that these discrepancies, when considered cumulatively, erode the credibility of the prosecution's case. The court highlighted the importance of strict compliance with procedural safeguards, especially in cases involving severe penalties.6. Admissibility of Purported Confessions:The appellant retracted his confessions, claiming they were made under duress and threat. The court held that the burden of proving that the confessions were made voluntarily lies with the prosecution. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the voluntariness of the confessions. The court also noted that the use of technical terms in the confessions, which the appellant, an Afghan national, was unlikely to know, raised doubts about their authenticity. The court concluded that the purported confessions could not be relied upon as the sole basis for conviction.Conclusion:1. The provisions of Sections 35 and 54 are not ultra vires the Constitution of India.2. Procedural requirements laid down therein are required to be strictly complied with.3. There are numerous discrepancies in the treatment and disposal of physical evidence, contradictions in the statements of official witnesses, and non-examination of independent witnesses, leading to a lack of credible evidence.4. The fact of recovery has not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt, which is required to establish before applying the doctrine of reverse burden.5. The investigation was not fair, and the impugned judgment cannot be sustained.The appeal is allowed, and the impugned judgment is set aside. The court also emphasized the necessity of disposing of such cases quickly to prevent undue delay in the justice process.