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>High Court Affirms Narcotics Convictions, Clarifies Search Rules, Reduces Sentences</h1> <h3>T. THOMSON Versus STATE OF KERALA</h3> The High Court upheld the convictions of three appellants under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985, affirmed the voluntariness of the ... - Issues involved: Conviction under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985, validity of statements recorded under Section 67, authorization for search, plea for reduction of sentence.Conviction under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985:Three persons were convicted under Sections 21 and 25 of the Act, with varying sentences and fines. Evidence included recovery of brown sugar during a raid and statements recorded from the accused under Section 67. The High Court acquitted a fourth person named Jay Kumar. Appeals were filed challenging the convictions.Validity of statements recorded under Section 67:The evidence mainly relied on statements recorded from the accused under Section 67 of the Act. The voluntariness of these statements was challenged by the defense counsel, but the court found no reason to doubt their voluntary nature, as the statements were considered to be made voluntarily after examination.Authorization for search:An argument was raised regarding the lack of a written authorization for the raid conducted by PW.l. It was contended that without proper authorization, the search was unauthorized. The court clarified that Section 41(2) requires authorization only if a subordinate officer is conducting the search, not when the Gazetted Officer himself conducts it.Plea for reduction of sentence:The appellants' counsel requested a reduction in the sentence, citing the small quantity of the narcotic drug involved. Considering the circumstances, the court decided to reduce the sentence to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of &8377; 1 lakh under Section 21 for all appellants. The sentence under Section 25 for the first accused was also reduced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of &8377; 1 lakh, to run concurrently.This judgment upheld the convictions of the three appellants under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985, affirmed the voluntariness of the recorded statements, clarified the authorization requirements for searches, and granted a reduction in the sentences based on the quantity of the narcotic drug involved.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
