https://www.taxtmi.com/css/info/rss_sitemap/rss_feed.css?v=1746094055 https://www.taxtmi.com Business/Tax/Law/GST/India/Taxation/Policies/Legal/Corporate Tax/Personal Tax/Vat Law/Legal Information/Tax Information/Legal Services/Tax Services Tax Management India. Com / MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved. One stop solution for Direct Taxes and Indirect Taxes https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260776 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260776 Challenge to acquittal of the Respondent under offence under Sections 22 and 23 of the Narcotics Drugs s clothing as stated by the Respondent in reply to question No.8 in his statement under Section 313 Cr PC, clearly the defence counsel would have noticed it and got a question recorded in that regard in the cross-examination of the witness - The evidence of PW-9 is trustworthy and consistent and has been corroborated by PW-11, the IO. The difference in the time of completion of proceedings as spoken by PW-9 (till 12 midnight) and PW-11 (till 4 am.) cannot by itself be taken to have diluted the credibility of their testimonies. - trial Court committed a manifest error in disbelieving the prosecution evidence, and also overlooking critical pieces of the evidence of the prosecution in concluding that it had not been able to prove the Respondent's conscious possession of the psychotropic substance. In the considered view of the Court, the prosecution evidence proves that fact beyond reasonable doubt. Even if in the present case the NCB officials were not in a position to explain to the Respondent the contents of the notice under Section 50 NDPS, on account of his inability to understand English and the inability to arrange for an interpreter at the airport, an adverse inference ought not to be drawn against the NCB since the contraband was not found from the person but from his checked-in luggage. The evidence on record does not persuade the Court to conclude, as the trial Court has done, that the officers had deposed falsely in that regard. Such a conclusion was not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. There is no evidence whatsoever regarding the tampering of the parcels or the samples sent for testing. There is nothing to show that the procedure for preserving and sending the samples for testing was not complied with. On the question of mixing of the substance, the trial Court appears to have overlooked the specific answer given by PW-11 in his cross-examination on 6th September 2011 Prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was the Respondent who had checked in his black trolley bag from which the psychotropic substance was recovered and that he was in conscious possession thereof. The prosecution has been able to prove that what was being carried by the Respondent by way of export from India to place outside India was a commercial quantity of a prohibited psychotropic substance, thus clearly attracting the offences under Sections 22 and 23 of the NDPS Act. - Court accordingly sets aside the impugned judgment of the trial Court and convicts the Respondent for the offences under Sections 22 (c) and 23 (c) of the NDPS Act. Quantum of sentence - Held that:- Under Section 22 (c) NDPS Act, the minimum sentence for a person who is found in possession of a commercial quantity of a psychotropic substance (in this case Meth) is ten years rigorous imprisonment („RI ) with fine not less than Rs. 1 lakh. It is likewise for the offence under Section 23 (c) NDPS Act. Consequently, for each of the offences under Sections 22(c) and 23(c) of the NDPS Act, this Court sentences the Respondent to undergo ten years RI with a fine of Rs. 1 lakh and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. - Decided in favour of Revenue. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 28 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530