2010 (4) TMI 1172 - SC - Indian Laws

Court affirms NDPS Act conviction for possessing Poppy Husk, reduces sentence. Challenge based on non-compliance dismissed.

The Court upheld the petitioner's conviction under Section 15 of the NDPS Act for possessing Poppy Husk without a permit, reducing the sentence imposed. ... - Issues involved: Conviction under Section 15 of the NDPS Act, compliance with Sections 42 and 57 of the NDPS Act, conscious possession of seized Poppy Husk.Conviction under Section 15 of the NDPS Act: The petitioner was convicted for possessing Poppy Husk without a permit, sentenced to 12 years imprisonment and a fine. The conviction was upheld by the Trial Court and partly reduced by the High Court.Compliance with Sections 42 and 57 of the NDPS Act: The petitioner challenged the conviction on grounds of non-compliance with Section 42 and Section 57 of the NDPS Act. The defense argued that failure to comply with these sections would vitiate the investigation and trial. Reference was made to relevant case laws to support this argument.Conscious possession of seized Poppy Husk: The defense contended that the petitioner was not in conscious possession of the Poppy Husk as the mere recovery from his premises did not establish conscious possession. It was argued that non-compliance with Sections 42 and 57 invalidated the trial and conviction.The State of Haryana countered the defense's arguments by stating that advancements in technology have altered the interpretation of Section 42. They argued that strict compliance may not always be possible in emergent situations and substantial compliance would suffice. The State also highlighted that non-compliance with Section 57 was not mandatory and substantial compliance did not vitiate the prosecution case.The Court agreed with the State's submissions, emphasizing that advancements in technology have changed the application of Section 42. They noted substantial compliance in sending information to the superior officer and found no prejudice to the accused. The Court also referenced previous judgments to support their decision.In conclusion, the Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's arguments regarding non-compliance with Sections 42 and 57, and conscious possession of the seized Poppy Husk.