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>Appellant's NDPS Act Section 20 conviction upheld for sufficient evidence and procedural compliance.</h1> <h3>Mahiman Singh Versus State of Uttrakhand</h3> The Court upheld the appellant's conviction under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, ruling that the prosecution had provided sufficient evidence and met ... Prosecution proceedings under the NDPS act - Held that:- the witnesses examined by the prosecution were able to prove the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt and hence even if one or two witnesses though cited initially were later given up by the prosecution, the same did not adversely affect the prosecution case in any manner. In other words, the conviction could be sustained on the evidence adduced and was rightly held to sustain in this case. - Indeed, in the light of evidence adduced by the prosecution, which indisputably remained un-rebutted, the two Courts below were justified in placing reliance on such evidence for recording the finding of conviction against the appellant. - Decided against the petitioner. Issues:Appeal against conviction under Section 20 of the NDPS Act - Sufficiency of evidence - Compliance with procedural requirements - Consideration of witness testimony - Reliance on self-speaking affidavit - Failure to examine a witness - Appreciation of evidence - Applicability of case laws.Analysis:The appellant appealed against the conviction under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, challenging the sufficiency of evidence and compliance with procedural requirements. The defense argued that there was no evidence to sustain the conviction and that the prosecution's evidence was insufficient. Additionally, it was contended that the requirements of Sections 42, 43, and 50 of the NDPS Act were not met, rendering the conviction unlawful. The defense also raised issues regarding the consideration of the accused's statement and an affidavit. However, the Court found no merit in these arguments.The prosecution maintained that the evidence presented was adequate for the appellant's conviction and that the procedural requirements were duly fulfilled. It was argued that the prosecution had complied with the relevant sections of the NDPS Act and that the affidavit in question could not be considered as evidence since the deponent was not examined. The prosecution also defended the non-examination of a particular witness, stating it was not fatal to the case.Upon review, the Court determined that the prosecution had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The search was conducted in a public place in the presence of a gazetted officer, meeting the requirements of the NDPS Act. The quantity of contraband recovered was commercial in nature, as specified in the Act. The Court highlighted the appellant's failure to present any defense evidence and the lack of proof for the relied-upon affidavit. The Court dismissed the argument regarding the non-examination of a witness, emphasizing that the sufficiency of evidence is crucial for conviction.The Court rejected the defense's request for a reevaluation of witness testimonies, stating that such assessments had already been conducted by the lower courts. The Court declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts, as there was no extreme perversity or arbitrariness in their decisions. The Court also differentiated the case laws cited by the defense, concluding that they did not support the appellant's position. Ultimately, the Court upheld the conviction, finding no merit in the appeal and dismissing it accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
