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>Court modifies sentences of accused, holding one guilty under different section of N.D.P.S. Act.</h1> <h3>Abdul Kader Jusab Sandhi And Anr. Versus State Of Gujarat</h3> Abdul Kader Jusab Sandhi And Anr. Versus State Of Gujarat - TMI Issues Involved:1. Legality of the conviction of Accused No. 2 under Section 20(b)(ii) of the N.D.P.S. Act.2. Legality of the sentence imposed on Accused No. 2.3. Compliance with Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act.4. Compliance with Section 52-A of the N.D.P.S. Act.5. Compliance with Section 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act.6. Legality of the conviction of Accused No. 1 under Section 22 of the N.D.P.S. Act.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Conviction of Accused No. 2 under Section 20(b)(ii) of the N.D.P.S. Act:The court found that Accused No. 2 was tried for possession of ganja and not charas. Consequently, Accused No. 2 cannot be convicted under Section 20(b)(ii) but should be held guilty under Section 20(b)(i) of the N.D.P.S. Act. The court noted that the trial court misread the provision and there was no evidence of criminal conspiracy under Section 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act.2. Legality of the Sentence Imposed on Accused No. 2:The court modified the sentence of Accused No. 2, ordering him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000 (in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 months). The court cited Section 65 of the Indian Penal Code, which limits imprisonment in default of payment of fine to one-fourth of the maximum term of imprisonment prescribed for the offence.3. Compliance with Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act:The court found that there was compliance with Section 50, which mandates that the accused be informed of their right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. The court noted that both accused were asked this question simultaneously, which was deemed sufficient compliance given the circumstances of the raid.4. Compliance with Section 52-A of the N.D.P.S. Act:The court rejected the argument that the police failed to comply with Section 52-A, which pertains to the disposal of seized narcotic drugs. The court clarified that Section 52-A is applicable only when there is a need to dispose of the seized material before the trial, which was not the case here as the contraband was produced before the court.5. Compliance with Section 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act:The court found that there was compliance with Section 57, which requires the officer to report the arrest and seizure to their immediate superior within 48 hours. The court noted that necessary entries were made in the Police Station Diary and reports were forwarded to the superior officers and the Judicial Magistrate.6. Legality of the Conviction of Accused No. 1 under Section 22 of the N.D.P.S. Act:The court held that Accused No. 1 could not be convicted under Section 22 of the N.D.P.S. Act, which deals with psychotropic substances. Instead, Accused No. 1 was found in possession of charas and ganja and should be convicted under Section 20(b)(ii) for charas and Section 20(b)(i) for ganja. The court modified the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 50,000 (in default, rigorous imprisonment for 15 months) for the offence related to ganja. For the charas-related offence, the court confirmed the sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh (in default, rigorous imprisonment for two and a half years).Conclusion:The appeal was allowed in part, modifying the sentences as outlined above. The court ensured that the sentences would run concurrently.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
