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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the quantity of heroin proved against the appellant amounted to commercial quantity under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and whether the quantitative analysis report was admissible in evidence under Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Analysis: The quantitative analysis report showed a purity percentage of 31.99%, on the basis of which the quantity attributable to heroin came to 903.72 grams. That quantity fell within commercial quantity as notified by the Central Government under Notification S.O.1055(E) dated 19.10.2001. The report was prepared by an Assistant Director and Assistant Chemical Examiner to Government, who was a Government scientific expert within Section 293(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the report was therefore admissible in evidence without examining the expert personally.
Conclusion: The finding of commercial quantity was upheld and the conviction under Section 21(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 was sustained. The appeal failed on merits, though the default sentence for non-payment of fine was reduced.
Ratio Decidendi: A quantitative analysis report prepared by a Government scientific expert falling within Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is admissible without personal examination, and where the proved quantity, after applying purity percentage, falls within the notified commercial quantity, conviction under Section 21(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is justified.