(A)Narcotic-Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 – Section 20(b)(ii)(A), 29, 52A – NDPS – Sample not representative – Sample not from homogenous seized material – Sample is of small quantity which is proved to Charas – Case against petitioners proved – Looking that sample not of representative and shows only small quantity – Conviction modified for small quantity under NDPS – Sentence modified to already undergone. (Para 29, 37)
(B)Evidence Act, 1872 – Section – 27, Narcotic-Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 – Section 29 – NDPS – Abetment and Criminal Conspiracy – Appellant charge sheeted and convicted mainly on the statement of other accused who was apprehended with Charas – Statement of co accused not beyond the shadow of doubt – Contradictions in witness regarding time etc – No independent witness joined – Police version highly doubtful. Held: The discovery of the fact must relate to the commission of some offence. Hence the only fact said to have been proved is the recovery of Rs. 40,000/- and the statement made by the appellant Sanju to that effect. However, in order to prove the guilt of appellant Sanju, such evidence was not sufficient. There was no evidence to prove that the amount recovered at the instance of appellant Sanju was proceed of crime for which he was charged. Conviction set aside. (Para 33, 34)
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
2023 STPL(Web) 72 HP
[2023:HHC:8835]
Sanju Vs. State Of H.P.
Cr. Appeal No. 136 of 2021 and Cr. Appeal No. 184 of 2021-Decided on 7-8-2023
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/2023-STPLWeb-72-HP.pdf
