Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 20(b)(ii)(B) -- Recovery of 400 gms charas - Search and seizure - Investigation by complainant - DSP who is a gazetted officer, was called to the spot and recovery was effected in his presence and immediately thereafter, case property along with accused was produced before SHO - Therefore, it cannot be said that..........
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 20(b)(ii)(B) -- Recovery of 400 gms charas - Search and seizure - Contention that in recovery memo, site plan, arrest memo etc, FIR number of case finds mentioned - Contention rejected, as FIR no. incorporated in said documents is in the blank space, which indicates that same filled up later on - Said fact got..........
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 20(b)(ii)(B) -- Recovery of 400 gms charas - Search and seizure - Non-preparation of CFSL Form at the spot - Accused while referring to statement of ASI could not point out that any suggestion given to him that CFSL form was not prepared at the spot - He was the best person to tell as to whether CFSL form was..........
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 20(b)(ii)(B) -- Recovery of 400 gms charas - Delay of 10 days in sending sample to FSL - Seals were intact and tallied with specimen seals - Though there is delay of about 10 days in sending samples to FSL, but same is not material, as seals were intact and in safe custody...........
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 20(b)(ii)(B) -- Recovery of 400 gms charas - Prosecution case duly supported by I.O and recovery witness - Requisite provisions of S.50 of NDPS Act were duly complied - Case property after recovery was also produced before SHO of police station - Prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt - Accused..........
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 20(b)(ii)(B) -- Recovery of 400 gms charas - Reduction of sentence - Non-commercial quantity - Accused was more than 70 years of age now - He is not a previous convict and has undergone 2 months 5 days of imprisonment - Even after suspension of sentence of accused in 2005, he was not involved in any other case -..........
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 52A -- Recovery of 400 gms charas - Non-compliance of S.52-A of the Act - S.52-A of the Act, relates to destruction of case property and has no relevance so far as recovery and taking sample at the spot is concerned - Question of no, compliance of S.52-A of the Act, does not arise...........
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 50 -- Recovery of 285 kgs ganja - Compliance of S.50 of the Act - Service of notice u/s 50 of the Act on accused and accused refusing to avail his right u/s 50 of the Act duly proved by testimonies of PW3, PW5 and PW8 as also through reply given in hand of accused - In fact, case of accused is that he was not..........
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 20(b)(ii)(C) -- Recovery of 285 kgs ganja - Difference in weighment of sample - Custody of samples duly proved by prosecution right from drawing of samples till same were produced before FSL by way of testimonies of PW5, PW7, PW2 and PW6 - FSL report also states that sealed parcels were received by it with seals..........
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 20(b)(ii)(C) -- Recovery of 285 kgs ganja - Difference in weighment of sample - Merely because at the time of trial it was found that some bags were cut from various places due to mice bites, case of prosecution does not get affected in any manner...........
