Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2014 (3) TMI 841

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....No. 31 of 2001 by its judgment dated 12th June, 2003. By the judgment under appeal, the conviction of all the appellants was set aside. It is not very clear whether any appeals are preferred against the acquittal of the other two accused except the respondent herein. 3. The sole respondent along with two other accused was tried for offences under Sections 23 and 29 of the NDPS Act. The trial court found the respondent herein guilty of an offence under Section 23 of the NDPS Act but found that the charge under Section 29 of the Act is not proved against him. He was, therefore, convicted for an offence under Section 23 of the NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh for an offence under Section 2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....has also been submitted that there is no independent witness to support the recovery of contraband and the prosecution failed to examine them. Only independent witness is a witness to Panchnama (Ext. 18)" 5. Dr. Ashok Dhamija, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the High Court grossly erred in coming to the conclusion that in the absence of proof that the Ganja allegedly seized from the custody of the respondent is of foreign origin, Section 23 of the NDPS Act is not attracted. 6. The learned counsel further assailed the conclusion of the High Court that the prosecution could not prove that the material seized from the respondent was ganja. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion 9(1) reads as follows; "9. Power of Central Government to permit, control and regulate. -(1) Subject to the provisions of section 8, the Central Government may, by rules- (a) permit and regulate- (i) the cultivation, or gathering of any portion (such cultivation or gathering being only on account of the Central Government) of coca plant, or the production, possession, sale, purchase, transport, import inter-State, export inter-State, use or consumption of coca leaves; (ii) the cultivation (such cultivation being only on account of Central Government) of the opium poppy; (iii) the production and manufacture of opium and production of poppy straw; (iv) the sale of opium and opium derivatives from the Central Government factories fo....