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>Police officer's illegal investigation leads to appellant's acquittal under ND&PS Act.</h1> <h3>Sh. Fayas Ali Versus State of Mizoram</h3> Sh. Fayas Ali Versus State of Mizoram - TMI Issues Involved:1. Legality of the investigation conducted by the complainant.2. Adequacy of evidence regarding the weight of the seized contraband.3. Contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses.Summary:Legality of the Investigation Conducted by the Complainant:The appellant was convicted u/s 21(c) of the ND&PS Act and sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The learned Amicus Curiae argued that the investigation was illegal as the complainant, a police officer, conducted the major part of the investigation, including arrest, seizure, and recording of witness statements. This was deemed unfair and unlawful, relying on precedents such as *Megha Singh vs. State of Haryana* and *State By Inspector of Police, Narcotic Intelligence Bureau, Madurai vs. Rajangam*. The court found that the investigation by the complainant vitiated the entire proceeding, resulting in a failure of justice.Adequacy of Evidence Regarding the Weight of the Seized Contraband:The learned Amicus Curiae contended that the weight of the seized capsules was not scientifically measured, as indicated by the term 'about' in the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor countered that the total weight of the capsules was calculated to be 5 kg, which is above the commercial quantity threshold. However, the court found discrepancies in the evidence regarding the weight of the seized items.Contradictions in the Testimonies of Prosecution Witnesses:The court noted contradictions in the testimonies of PWs 1, 2, and 3 regarding the place of occurrence and manner of arrest. PW1 did not mention chasing the accused, while PWs 2 and 3 did. These inconsistencies raised doubts about the veracity of the evidence.Judgment:The court concluded that the investigation conducted by the complainant was unfair and vitiated the entire proceeding. The impugned conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted and ordered to be released forthwith. The court also acknowledged the assistance of the learned Amicus Curiae and ordered a remuneration of Rs. 5000/- to be paid by the Mizoram Legal Services Authority.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
