NDPS search procedure and recovery defects rejected as the conviction and sentence were upheld.
An NDPS conviction was challenged on alleged non-compliance with Section 50 and defects in recovery, sealing, and defence evidence. The prosecution showed that the accused was informed of the right to be searched before a gazetted officer or Magistrate, and the search was carried out before a gazetted officer after the accused chose that option. The Court found no basis to infer that the notice was fabricated after the search. The FIR number on the recovery memo did not vitiate the seizure, the non-joining of independent witnesses was explained by villagers' refusal, and the custody of seized articles was accepted. The defence of false implication was rejected, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.
Issues: Whether the conviction under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 was liable to be set aside on the grounds of alleged non-compliance with the search procedure under Section 50 and alleged infirmities in recovery and defence evidence.
Analysis: The prosecution evidence established that the accused was apprised of his right to be searched before a gazetted officer or Magistrate and that the search was conducted in the presence of a gazetted officer after the accused expressed that preference. The Court found no material to show that the search was first completed and notice was later fabricated. The presence of the FIR number on the recovery memo did not by itself vitiate the recovery, and the absence of independent witnesses was explained by the refusal of villagers to join the investigation. The evidence regarding sealing and custody of the seized articles was accepted, and the absence of injuries to the accused despite the vehicle turning turtle was held not to discredit the prosecution. The defence version of false implication was found unpersuasive in light of the prosecution evidence and the inconsistency in the defence account.
Conclusion: The challenge to the conviction failed, and the finding of guilt and sentence were upheld.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
