High Court confirms convictions under N.D.P.S. Act, reduces sentence, acquits based on unreliable evidence.

The High Court confirmed the appellants' convictions under Section 20(b)(ii) of the N.D.P.S. Act but reduced one appellant's sentence to 10 years and Rs. 1 lakh fine. The court acquitted the other appellant due to unreliable evidence of charas discovery. It held that the search complied with Section 50 of the NDPS Act for the second appellant. Despite raised irregularities in safe custody procedures, only one appellant's conviction was set aside, resulting in acquittal for that appellant, while the conviction and sentence of the other were upheld.

---

---

Issues:
1. Appeal against conviction and sentence under Section 20(b)(ii) of the N.D.P.S. Act.
2. Evidence of discovery of charas and police involvement.
3. Compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act during search.
4. Alleged irregularities in following procedures for safe custody of seized charas.

Analysis:
1. The appellants were tried for an offense under Section 20(b)(ii) of the N.D.P.S. Act, where the trial court convicted them and imposed a 15-year sentence with a fine. The High Court confirmed their conviction but reduced the sentence to 10 years and the fine to Rs. 1 lakh each. The separate appeals by the appellants were disposed of together due to a common judgment.

2. Regarding one appellant, it was argued that the evidence of charas discovery was unreliable as the police were already informed about its location before the appellant led them there. The court found that the charas was found in an open space accessible to all, making it difficult to attribute its concealment to the appellant. Consequently, the conviction of this appellant was set aside.

3. Concerning the other appellant, it was contended that the search conducted did not comply with Section 50 of the NDPS Act. However, the court found that the appellant was properly informed of his rights before the search, as the police officer explained the purpose of the search and offered the option of being searched in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. The appellant declined this offer, indicating his understanding of the situation. Therefore, the court held that Section 50 requirements were met in this case.

4. The defense also raised issues about irregularities in the procedure for safe custody of the seized charas. However, the court determined that these irregularities were not significant enough to invalidate the trial or the appellant's conviction. As a result, the conviction of one appellant was set aside, while the conviction and sentence of the other were confirmed.

In conclusion, one appellant's conviction was overturned, leading to acquittal, while the conviction and sentence of the other appellant were upheld.

---