Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 20(b)(ii)(C) -- Recovery of 21 kg ganja - Difference in weight of sample - 1 kg sample sent but FSL received 963 gms. - At the spot contraband was weighted by manual scales and at FSL weighed with electronic weighing machine - Since the weight of contraband recovered as per manual scale is 21 kg which is..........
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 20(b)(ii)(C) -- Recovery of 54 kgs of ganja out of which 21 kg was recovered from petitioner/accused - Reduction of sentence - As per testimony of witnesses and seizure memo, 1 kg of sample was sent to FSL for examination and when same was received at FSL it weighed 963 gms - However, difference in weight is for..........
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 37 -- Bail - There is a statutory bar in the matter of grant of bail where contraband recovered is of commercial quantity - However, in the event it is found that there are inherent lacunas in the prosecution case which goes to its root and a strong prima facie case consistent with innocence of accused is made..........
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 439, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 37 -- Bail - Recovery of 702 kg poppy - Petitioner not directly involved in business in poppy, as business is conducted by her father - Licence stands in the name of father of petitioner - Moreover, weighment of stock of poppy was not conducted in a proper manner..........
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 20(b)(ii)(c) -- Recovery of charas - Two out of three sample were almost 50% less when reached FSL - In case sample was safely sent from malkhana to chemical laboratory then samples of same weight ought to have reached chemical laboratory - Sample was tampered before it was sent for analysis and it was not kept..........
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 20(b)(ii)(c) -- Recovery of charas - Tampering of samples - PW6 stated that samples were with him for 16 to 17 hours but he utterly failed to prove that when samples were taken from Malkhana who was the I.O with him at that time - Even G.D entry in this regard not proved - Prosecution utterly failed in proving..........
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 50 -- Recovery of charas - Compliance of S.50 of the Act - Nothing recovered from personal search of accused and conviction also not based upon any personal search - Accused were properly apprised of their rights regarding search to be made before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate - It cannot be said that due..........
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 55 -- Recovery of charas - Search and seizure - Non-compliance of S.55 of the Act - Merely because numbering of Malkhana register was not there, same cannot be said to be fatal, as compliance of S.55 of the Act is only directory, more particularly, when entries regarding recovered articles were being made..........
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 20(b)(ii)(c) -- Recovery of charas - Tampering of samples - Original seal of samples that was affixed at the time of seizure was replaced by U.P.P. - It was incumbent upon prosecution to clarify as to when seals were changed but prosecution conspicuously silent about this, which shows that samples were being..........
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 57 -- Recovery of charas - Search and seizure - Non-compliance of S.57 of the Act - Information to higher officials in a sealed envelope was given on the same day - Said fact is duly corroborated by PWs - Compliance of S.57 of the Act duly made...........
