TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the statement recorded under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 was voluntary and could be relied upon for conviction; (ii) Whether the sentence of 30 years rigorous imprisonment imposed in the second case was justified under Section 31 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Issue (i): Whether the statement recorded under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 was voluntary and could be relied upon for conviction.
Analysis: The statement was accepted by the accused, was not retracted, and was found by both courts below to be voluntary. The record also showed that the statement was read over to the accused, who understood it and signed thereafter. In these circumstances, the challenge to its use failed.
Conclusion: The statement under Section 67 was voluntary and could validly be relied upon against the appellant.
Issue (ii): Whether the sentence of 30 years rigorous imprisonment imposed in the second case was justified under Section 31 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Analysis: Section 31 provides enhanced punishment for a person previously convicted under the Act. For a minimum punishable offence, the enhanced minimum is one and one-half times the minimum term. The High Court had enhanced the sentence by taking the maximum term and then applying the multiplier. The sentence was held to be excessive on the facts, and the ends of justice were considered better served by a lower term, keeping in view the appellant's age and ailments.
Conclusion: The sentence was reduced to 16 years rigorous imprisonment and the fine in the Bombay case was reduced to Rs. 2 lakhs, with the two sentences to run concurrently.
Final Conclusion: Conviction was maintained, but the punishment in the second case was modified by reducing the term of imprisonment and fine, and the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
Ratio Decidendi: A voluntary and unretracted statement recorded under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 can be relied upon, and enhanced punishment under Section 31 must be applied with reference to the statutory minimum where the offence is punishable by a minimum term of imprisonment.
TaxTMI 
