2000 (12) TMI 899 - SC - Customs

Conviction upheld for possession of chura-post under Narcotic Drugs Act

The appellant was convicted under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 based on evidence presented by prosecution ... - Issues:1. Conviction under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.2. Compliance with search procedures under Section 50 of the Act.3. Proper sealing of the seized articles.4. Consideration of defense witness testimony in the case.Analysis:1. The appellant was convicted under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 based on evidence presented by prosecution witnesses, including DSP Lal Chand, ASI Subhash Chander, SI Baljit Singh, and Head Constable Sudhinder Kumar. The courts, after evaluating the evidence, concluded that the defense raised by the appellant lacked substance. The prosecution's version of events, supported by witness testimonies and the Chemical Analyser's report, led to the conviction of the appellant for possession of chura-post. The courts found no merit in the appellant's denial of the charges and his claim of false implication.2. The appellant's counsel argued that the search conducted did not comply with the requirements of Section 50 of the Act as proper notice was not given. However, the court dismissed this argument, stating that the prosecution's version indicated that the accused was informed and notice was given before the search. The absence of any suggestion during the trial that the search was conducted before informing the accused about the option to be searched by a gazetted officer or a Magistrate further supported the legality of the search.3. Another contention raised was regarding the proper sealing of the seized articles. The defense argued that the sealing was not done correctly, and no independent witnesses were called. However, the court rejected these arguments, noting that the seals were affixed separately by different personnel, as testified by the witnesses. The lack of injuries on the accused, despite the van turning turtle, did not invalidate the seizure process, as it was not necessary for injuries to occur in all cases.4. The defense witness, the owner of the Maruti van, testified about a dispute with a police officer, suggesting a possible motive for falsely implicating the appellant. However, the court found this argument unpersuasive, highlighting that implicating the van owner would have been easier if the intention was to frame someone. The court emphasized that the appellant's claim of false implication lacked credibility, especially considering the evidence and the absence of a valid reason to involve the appellant. Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower courts' decisions based on the evidence and reasoning presented during the trial.