TaxTMI Login
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
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court acquits appellant in NDPS case due to lack of evidence, stresses importance of proper procedures</h1> <h3>VALSALA Versus STATE OF KERALA</h3> The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, Smt. Valsala, of the conviction under Section 21 of the NDPS Act due to insufficient evidence linking the ... - Issues involved: Conviction u/s 21 of NDPS Act, 1985 based on seized article, delay in sending article to Chemical Examiner, custody and sealing of seized article.Conviction u/s 21 of NDPS Act:The appellant, Smt. Valsala, was convicted u/s 21 of the NDPS Act and sentenced to 10 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. one lakh. The police found a packet near her containing a powder suspected to be Brown Sugar. The article seized was sent to the Chemical Examiner who confirmed it to be Brown Sugar. The appellant denied the offence.Delay in sending article to Chemical Examiner:A key contention was the delay in sending the seized article to the Magistrate, raising doubts on whether the article sent for examination was the same as the one seized. The seized article was produced in court after more than three months with no evidence of proper custody or sealing. The courts noted discrepancies in the handling of the seized article, casting doubt on its integrity.Custody and sealing of seized article:The seized article's custody and sealing were crucial issues. The courts found a lack of clarity on who had custody of the article and whether it was sealed properly. Testimonies of involved officers were inconsistent, with gaps in information on the handling of the seized article. The prosecution failed to establish a clear chain of custody, leading to insufficient evidence for conviction.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Sessions Judge and the High Court, acquitting the appellant due to insufficient evidence linking the seized article to the Chemical Examiner's report. The Court emphasized the importance of proper handling and documentation of seized articles in drug-related cases to ensure a fair trial.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
