Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 22 -- Recovery of 3000 Aprazolam 0.5 tablets - No permit or license to keep it - Contention that FIR number was mentioned in information sent to police station for registration of FIR - Contention rejected, as it is apparent that space was left and FIR number was filled later on...........
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 22 -- Recovery of 3000 Aprazolam 0.5 tablets - Difference in ingredient of tablet recovered from that of report of FSL - Seals of parcel were found intact and matched with specimen seal impression - Accused was produced before Magistrate and Magistrate took out from the main parcel one representative sample..........
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 22 -- Recovery of 3000 Aprazolam 0.5 tablets - Non-examination of ASI - Prosecution produced sufficient evidence so as to bring home guilt of accused - It is not necessary that all official witnesses must be examined to unnecessarily burden the file - Moreover, accused could not bring to notice of Court any..........
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 22 -- Recovery of 3000 Aprazolam 0.5 tablets - It is mentioned in report of FSL that open parcel sealed with two seals received with seal intact and tallied with specimen seal impression - Whether the parcel was in a plastic box or in some other container was not necessarily required to be mentioned - Such..........
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 22 -- Recovery of 10 bottles of Rexcof - Signatures of accused on bulk parcel not obtained by I.O - Seal on bulk parcel is broken - No batch number, serial number, manufacturing or other particulars of case property were mentioned - No independent witness was joined - No intimation was sent to superior or..........
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 22 -- Recovery of 10 bottles of Rexcof - Officiating SHO admitted that case property was kept by him in Almirah in Malkhana and not deposited same with regular SHO - There is no rapat regarding working of SHO as officiating SHO - No second sample of intoxicant recovered was drawn - Accused acquitted...........
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 22 -- Recovery of 10 bottles of Rexcof - SHO signed form no.29 next day from the day of production of accused and case property - However, no explanation was given for the same - Prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt - Benefit of doubt thus, given to accused - Accused acquitted...........
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 21 -- Recovery of 130 gms smack - In absence of any independent public witness, Court is required to examine evidence led by prosecution with more care and caution...........
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 21 -- Recovery of 130 gms smack - Madd number which is number assigned by Head Constable when parcels is kept in Malkhana, is mentioned on polythene containing case property - There is no dispute with regard to identity of parcel which was stored in Malkhana - Contention of accused that madd number not mentioned..........
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 55 -- Recovery of 130 gms smack - I.O deposited case property with Head Constable and on next day after taking delivery from Head Constable case property was produced along with accused before Court - Thus, there is no violation of provision of S.55 of the Act - Accused rightly convicted...........
