Rhea Chakraborty Vs Union Of India

FACTS:

Rhea Chakraborty- the Applicant is a famous Bollywood actor and she was arrested by the Narcotics Crime Bureau along with several other persons which included her brother Showik Chakraborty and acquaintance Samuel Miranda. She was accused of facilitating, eliciting and harboring drugs for the Sushant Singh Rajput, a Bollywood actor as well, who committed suicide on June 15^th. Rhea has numerous accusations on her, one of which was playing a hand in the Sushant Singh Rajput’s Suicide. The applicant who was arrested before a month has had several Bail applications rejected. She denies all the allegations against her and Requests for bail at the Bombay High Court as she has complied with all the Investigation procedures.

ISSUE:

Section 8 (c) read with 20 (b) (ii), 22, 27A, 28, 29 and 30 of the Narcotics drugs and Psychotropic substances act, 1985 (NDPS ACT) 

APPLICANT CONTENTION:

The applicant Rhea Chakraborty contended that, the NCB had no further reason to conduct an investigation because the supreme court had transferred the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Further, the applicant said that there was no evidence of Procurement and facilitation of drugs against her as the NCB did not find any drugs at the applicant’s house and had no concrete evidence that she was facilitating the drugs to another person. The applicant submitted that there was no basis on the NCB’s contention that she was procuring drugs for Sushant Singh Rajput as he was financially independent and had no reason to procure drugs through the applicant.

RESPONDENT CONTENTION:

The respondent contended that Rhea Chakraborty along with her brother Showik Chakraborty were part of a nexus that was involved in procuring, facilitating and consumption of drugs. The Respondent Represented by the additional solicitor general stood firm on the contention that Rhea procured drugs for Sushant Singh Rajput and also harbored drugs for him. The applicant along with 20 others who were arrested are all a part of the drug nexus and the Applicant was actively giving instructions, making payments and procurement of drugs. Her acts fell within the definition of ‘financing’ and ‘harboring’ as mentioned under Section 27A of the NDPS Act.

JUDGEMENT:

The bench of Justice SV Kotwal of the Bombay High Court granted bail to Bollywood actress Rhea Chakraborty, in case registered under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act by the NCB. The court, however, rejected the bail application filed by Showik Chakraborty, who was also accused of NDPS offences by the NCB. The court while granting bail set stringent conditions on Rhea Chakraborty like 1 lakh Bail Bond, reporting to the Police station for 10 days and she is not allowed to leave the country.

The post Rhea Chakraborty released on Bail after one month in Judicial Custody appeared first on LexForti .

Chailbihari Trading Private Limited Company v. Union of India

Facts:

The petitioner- Chailbihari Trading Private Limited Company challenged the guidelines dated 25^th June, 2019 issued by the respondent no.2- Central Bureau of Narcotics to regulate import of poppy seeds into India from Turkey. The petitioners stated that the guidelines are an unconstitutional restriction on their right to trade and carry on business. It is not disputed that the Central Bureau of Narcotics regulates poppy seed import into India. The petitioners being registered importers have the necessary license. They agree that there is a cap or quota on the poppy seed import from various points of origin, and there is a cap on the quantity imported for each foreign exporter country. Until recently, the import permissions were by sale of lots. The respondents issued a public notice on 25^th June 2019, in which guidelines for registration of sales contract regarding poppy seed imports from Turkey were laid down. Clause I provide for determining a country cap, which is to be approved by the Department of Revenue based on Narcotics Commissioner’s recommendation, a representative of Directorate General of Foreign Trade and representative of Department of Revenue. The country cap would be based on stock and production of poppy seeds as communicated by the Turkish Grain Board (TMO) or the Turkish Embassy in India, so this cap is not ad hoc or without basis. Clause II provides for the Turkish exporter to be registered with the TMO, the Indian importer has to approach the Narcotics Commissioner for registration of sales contract, conditions for which are prescribed. One condition being each importer can register the quantity applied for or 25 containers (450MT) whichever is less during a particular crop year, along with other detailed provisions for procedure, validity, surrender and penalty.

Issues:

• Whether the Government issued notification to regulate import of poppy seeds in India is unreasonable or discriminatory.
• Whether the notification violates the petitioner’s right to trade and occupation.

Legal Provisions:

• Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 section-9 Power of Central Government to permit, control and regulate.
• Constitution of India, 1950 Article 19 (g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.

Petitioner’s Contention:

The petitioner contends that the registration process will create a monopoly and the old system of drawing lots was preferable. They also stated that if the Turkish exporter is registered with the TMO, the requirement for the Indian importer to register is unreasonable and will cause duplication of work. They stated that earlier restriction was of 5 containers and by raising it to 25 the rich and powerful importers will only get the imports. They argued that the time frames are unrealistic and a form of invidious discrimination.

Respondents’ Contention:

The counsel for respondent no.1 referred to the decision of the division bench of Allahabad High Court in Ayurveda Sewashram Kalyan Samiti v. Union of India and others (2014) whereby it was noticed that India is a signatory to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961. It was noted that though narcotic and such substances have scientific and medical uses they are also abused and trafficked, beside the constitutional mandate to the state to promote health and nutrition led to the formation of the Indian Policy to Prevent Drug Abuse. India is also a signatory to three other conventions on drug-related matters. The case was regarding import of poppy seeds and the court in that case observed three conditions governing import of poppy seeds- point of origin, importer’s certification that poppy was cultivated legally and the import contacts to be registered with Narcotics Commissioner. 

Observations of the Court:

The court did not find any merit in these contentions. It stated that there was no fundamental right to be an importer or to import poppy seeds, or to import anything without restrictions or without any restrictions only on terms beneficial to a particular person. They stated that the burden of proof is on the petitioner to show how the notification is arbitrary and discriminatory. If a classification is challenged it must be shown that it has no connection to the object of the impugned law, and the petitioner were unable to prove this.  It was clarified that the notification was made pursuant to the MoU between India and Turkey dated 23^rdMay 2018 and by a notification dated 29^th July 2016, the Government of India gave powers to the Department of Revenue to frame guidelines to give effect to the National policy on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances controlled by the NDPS Act 1985, the MoU being sovereign cannot be challenged. The notification provides guideline to prevent cartelization, artificial blocking of country caps and artificial raising of re-sale prices. The court noted that no one complained against this notification, also one Ms. Setalvad, an importer had contested this petition. The court noted that the present petition does not question the power to frame such guidelines. The court observed that NDPS Act, chapter III, sec-9 gives Central Government power to control and regulate production, manufacture, import and export of substances including opium poppy cultivation and production all of which is regulated. Chapter III-A of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act 1992, inserted by the 2010 amendment which gives powers to the central government to impose quantitative restrictions on import, these restrictions can continue for a maximum period of 4 years expendable by a like period. The court noted that once it is found that there is power to regulate and impose quantitative restriction and there is no challenge to the exercise of that power, nothing remains of the petition. The court criticized the petitioners for filing a petition challenging a government policy framed in a legitimate exercise of statutory power, with no data to support their allegations. The court observed that the petitioner seeks to scrap this new policy and be governed by the old policy without giving any reasons or evidence for the same. The court noted that the objections regarding the registration were not new and the petitioners themselves had followed them in the past. It noted that since the guidelines were issued in furtherance of larger interest then the commercial interest of the petitioners may suffer.

Judgement:

The court did not find merit in the petitioners’ contention and dismissed the petition.

The post There is no fundamental right to import anything without any restrictions appeared first on LexForti .

Introduction

 Drug abuse is a social evil that is harming many people across the world. Drugs and narcotics have been used since ancient times. In India, opium drug was first introduced in 2000 B.C and was used as medicines for curing diseases. But later, people started getting addicted to it and consume it in large quantities. Later, the cultivation of the Opium started along with the western coast of the country on a large scale. When the East India Company entered India, they found that opium was a great source of business and started exporting to other nations. The Britishers made the business of opium into large scale commercial enterprise, consolidating and bringing cultivation and manufacture of opium under the control through the Opium Acts of 1857.^[1] Further, the Indian Government wanted to curb the use of the drug in the nation and this became their major policy goal of every leader in the country. There were many provisions passed in the country to eliminate drug use in the country. In the year 1930, the government enacted the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930 under which there was control over the use of the drugs and the punishments on the usage. After a few years of independence, the Indian Government passed the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, 1985. Under this Act, all the illegal buying, selling and exporting, manufacturing, consuming all were seized. This Act replaced the Opium Act, 1857, and Dangerous Act, 1930.

Legal Framework for the possession of Drugs

India is a party to the three United Nations drug convention: the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotics Drugs (1961 Convention),  the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances (1971 Convention), and the 1988 Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (1988 Convention). Therefore, the Government passed the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, 1985 (hereinafter NDPS Act) which came into the force on 14^th November 1985. The NDPS Act prohibits the sale, cultivation, production, possession, purchase, trade, import, export, consumption of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances except for medicinal purposes. The main aim of the NDPS Act was to make stringent provisions for the control and regulations of operations relating to narcotics drugs and psychotropic substances besides providing for the forfeiture derived from or used in the illicit trafficking of drugs.  

The Act covers three kinds of substances viz. Narcotic Drugs- covered under the 1961 Convention, Psychotropic Substances- covered under the 1971 Convention and Controlled Substances that are used to make narcotic or psychotropic substances. Narcotic Drugs mean cannabis, opium, coca plant or leaf, poppy straw, and all manufactured drugs.^[2] Psychotropic Substances means any substance, natural or synthetic, or any natural material or any salt or preparation of such substance or material included in the list of psychotropic substances specified in the Schedule.^[3] The NDPS Act states the procedure or search, seizure, and arrest for a person in public and private places. It also states about the stringent punishments to the accused which are enforced by the Court under this Act.^[4]

Amendments in the NDPS Act

There were three amendments in the NDPS Act in the years 1989, 2001, and 2014. In 2001, there was an amendment made in the Act which stated the punishment based on the quantity involved i.e. small, commercial, or intermediate. There was another amendment in 2014 in which the legislation introduced a new term ‘essential narcotic drugs’, making the death penalty for a subsequent offence involving a certain quantity of drugs under Section 31A, enhanced punishment for small quantity offences from a maximum of six months to one-year imprisonment, more elaborate provisions of forfeiture of property of persons arranged on charges of drug trafficking.^[5]

Office of the Controller under the NDPS Act

The Central Government with the coordination of State Governments has the power to take measures for preventing and combating abuse of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.^[6] The enforcement of the provisions of the NDPS Act is looked at by various agencies such as NCB, Customs, and Central Excise, State Police, Enforcement Directorate, Central Bureau of Investigation, etc. All these agencies play an important role in this provision. The Narcotic Control Bureau coordinates all the drug-related matters in the country.  

Punishment

Possession and consumption of drugs are considered as a serious crime in our country. Therefore, there are very strict and stringent punishments for the same under the NDPS Act, 1985. The punishment is based upon the number of drugs consumed or possessed by the owner. Under the NDPS Act, there is separate punishment for every type of drug or psychotropic substance.

The harshest punishment under the NDPS Act is the death punishment. This punishment is given to the person if he/ she is engaged in the possession, production, transportation, import, or export of drugs or psychotropic substances given in the table.^[7] The consumption of drugs such as cocaine, morphine, or any other psychotropic substances by any person was punished with rigorous imprisonment which may extend to one year or a fine which may extend to twenty thousand rupees or both.^[8]But if a person is arrested under the Act for minor offences like consumption of small quantities of narcotics drugs or psychotropic substances is entitled to bail.^[9]

Treatment for the Drug dependence

The Central Government and the NDPS Act have different ways to support the treatment for drug addicts. A National Fund was created by the NDPS Act to control drug abuse. This Fund can be made by any person or institution, the sale proceeds of any property forfeited, any amount which the Central Government may provide after the appropriation made by the Parliament, and the income from investment of the amounts.^[10]

There are many treatment centers are opened by the Central and State Governments in the country which is also known as de-addiction centers. This service is available through government hospitals, NGOs, psychiatric hospitals, nursing centers, or private de-addiction centers.

Conclusion

In India, drug abuse is considered as a more heinous crime than the murder because it impacts negatively impacting youngsters and society. By the enactment of the NDPS Act by the Central Government has helped to control the drug abuse by granting capital punishment or rigorous imprisonment to the drug addicts and the owners. But by the enactment, not all the drug trafficking and the drug owners cannot be caught. The Government has to create a  separate database with all the drug owners and trafficking with the help of evidence. Also, there can be an accumulation of information on drug dependence, substance use, and the impact on the health of the people in the society. Therefore, there must be more rules regarding drug abuse and trafficking as it is spreading widely in the country.

FAQs

^[1] Tripti Tandon, Drug Policy in India, International Drug Policy Consortium, 2015.

^[2] Section 2(xiv), NDPS Act, 1985. 

^[3] Section 2(xxiii), NDPS Act, 1985. 

^[4] State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, (1999) 6 SCC 172. 

^[5] Supra Note 1. 

^[6] Section 4, NDPS Act, 1985. 

^[7] Section 31A, NDPS Act, 1985.

^[8] Section 27, NDPS Act, 1985.

^[9] Shaji v. State of Kerala, 2004 (3) KLT 270.

^[10] Section 7A, NDPS Act, 1985. 

The post Punishment for possession of drugs appeared first on LexForti .

Manga @ Manga Singh v. State of Punjab

Facts:

The petitioner- Manga Singh filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court under articles- 226/227 0f the Indian Constitution challenging the order of the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate whereby the petitioner’s parole was rejected. The petitioner was convicted for possession of 70 kg of Poppy Husk in FIR no.169 dated 15-10-2010, registered at Police Station, Kapurthala for offence u/s-15 of the narcotics and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS), Act 1985, by the Special Court and sentenced to 10 years, petitioner’s appeal in this case pending before the High Court. He was also convicted in FIR no.129 dated 27-06-2014, also u/s15 of the NDPS Act 1985, appeal pending before the High Court. The petitioner had applied for parole for six weeks period, by an application dated 20-02-2017 addressed to the Jail Superintendent (respondent no-4), he was to meet his family and get treatment done of his wife suffering from liver ailment. The application was processed and the villagers of Latianwal did not object to the petitioner’s parole, Jail Superintendent sent a reminder dated 01-09-2017 to the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate reasoned that besides conviction in FIR no. 169 the petitioner had 4 other cases of similar nature registered against him under the NDPS Act 1985, and he had been a proclaimed offender for long, he was likely to engage in sale of intoxicants while on parole and badly impact the society and harm the people. The District Magistrate agreeing with the report of Senior Superintendent of Police (respondent no.3), rejected the petitioner’s application for parole under the provisions of Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962. The petitioner had thus approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court for grant of parole and to dismiss the impugned order of the District Magistrate.  

Issues:

• Whether the petitioner is entitled to receive grant of parole for a period of six weeks.
• Whether the DM was right in rejecting the petitioner’s parole application.

Legal Provisions:

• Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985, Section-15 Punishment for contravention in relation to poppy straw.
• Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962.
• Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Rules, 1963.

Petitioner’s contention:

The counsel for the petitioner argued that the ground for rejecting his parole application are contrary to the provisions of Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act 1962 and Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Rules, 1963, it provides for the rejection of parole on the ground of danger to the security of state or prejudicial to maintenance of public order and not because of the number of cases registered against the prisoner or the likelihood of him dealing in intoxicants again, which are irrelevant considerations. They submitted that the petitioner had maintained good conduct during his imprisonment period and so there is no obstruction for granting him parole, they referred to the judgement in the case of Daler Singh v. State of Punjab, where it was held that a mere apprehension that the petitioner will abscond is not a ground for rejecting his parole case even if he had indulged in smuggling activities earlier. They also pleaded that the conviction of the petitioner in FIR no. 41 was suspended by the High Court on 12-11-2018; similarly, the Special Court by a judgement dated 17-02-2020, acquitted the petitioner in FIR no.81 for offences under the NDPS Act 1985 along with offences under Arms Act; in FIR no.17, the petitioner was convicted u/s-21 of the NDPS Act 1985, by a judgement dated 02-09-2015, the petitioner had already undergone the sentence period for this conviction. The petitioner further submitted that was in custody from 2014, so he has been behind bars or the past six years and his possible release date is 08-06-2020, so the counsel prayed that the benefit of parole be extended to the petitioner and that the DM’s order is not sustainable. 

Respondents Contention:

The state chose not to file a reply and to defend the order of Special court on the merits and facts of the case.

Observations of the Court:

The court observed that it was not disputed that the Jail Superintendent had favourably recommended the petitioner’s case, the order for rejecting the same was passed three years later only on account of the direction of the High Court to decide the case expeditiously in accordance with law, thus the petitioner had undergone further three years of imprisonment since the application was made. The court then went through rules (3) and (4) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Rules, 1963; the court observed that the petitioner’s case does not fall under the exceptions of danger to security of the sate or prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and that the Jail Superintendent had also not recorded the same. The court observed that for the petitioner’s prayer for relief, reliance can be placed on the judgement in the case of Ramchander v. State of Punjab (2017), where it was held that ‘likelihood of committing a crime while on parole’ is not a sufficient ground for rejection a parole application and it will not fall under the exceptions of 1963 Rules, here they referred to the judgement on the case of Varun @ Gullu v. State of Haryana and others (2004) where it was stated that the authorities cannot act arbitrarily or without due application of the 1963 rules, the statutory power to grant parole is to be exercised objectively and by keeping in mind the intention of the legislature and purpose for the same. The court then referred to the judgement in the case of Bansilal v. State of Punjab (2016) where it was held that the security of state and maintenance of public order are not the same as maintenance of law and order, the distinction between public order and law and order is of the extent of the act on the people and society. Every breach of peace does not lead to public disorder and only an act which disturbs the life of the public at large affects the maintenance of public order. Taking these reasoning into consideration, the court held that merely on the ground of four other cases being registered against the petitioner, his parole application cannot be denied  the court observed that the grant of parole is a reformative process whereby a convict is reintroduced to normal life and so denying such benefit to the petitioner in spite of  the settled position of law and favourable recommendation by the Jail Superintendent, on the basis of the reasoning given by the District Magistrate is irrational.

Judgement:

The court quashed the order of the District Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate dated 11-03-2020. The District Magistrate was directed to reconsider the matter within a period of four weeks and pass the necessary order, by keeping in mind the observations made by this court.   

The post Likelihood of engaging in sale of intoxicants is not a valid ground for rejecting prisoner’s parole application appeared first on LexForti .

Gangadhar alias Gangaram v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Facts:

The appellant- Gangadhar alias Gangaram- sold his house in Nimkhed village to one Gokul Dangi on 12-06- 2009 for Rs. 45000, the sale deed was registered on 26-06-2009 with one Tolaram and Ghasiram, the village watchman as witnesses who imprinted their fingerprints as signatures. The police had received secret information on 11-08-2009, that Gokul Dangi had stored contraband substance in his house situated in gram Nimkhed. The police arrived in the village for search and seizure and were helped by Gangaram and Ghasiram in locating the house, the house was locked from inside, the police broke the lock of the house and recovered 48kgs.200gms of contraband cannabis (ganja), the appellant and the watchman were witnesses to this. Gokul was not present in the house during the search, in the absence of Gokul investigation was completed and a criminal case was registered in the name of Gangadhar, his name was added to the charge-sheet as co-accused along with Gokul. The Special Judge of the Sessions Court held that Gangaram prepared a forged agreement of the sale of his said house but the same is still recorded in his name as per the 2008 Voters List; so it was presumed that the seized quantity of contraband belongs to him leading to his conviction under section- 8 and section-20 (B)(II)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985 with 10 years of Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The appellant filed an appeal before the Madhya Pradesh High Court against the findings and judgement of the Trial court, however, the High Court upheld the decision of the trail court against his conviction. The appellant has therefore filed an appeal before the Supreme Court for relief in this matter and has preyed for his acquittal.

Issues:

1. Whether Gangaram had forged the sales agreement and was still the owner and in possession of the house.
2. Whether ownership of the house by Gangaram proves that he was in possession of the contraband substances found in the house.
3. Whether the conviction of Gangaram under the NDPS Act, 1985 is made on sufficient lawful grounds.

Legal Provisions:

1. Constitution of India, 1950 Article 226
2. Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Sections 8C and 20(b)(ii)(c), sections 35and 37 and 54.

Appellant Contention:

The counsel for the appellant relying on the case Gopal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2002), stated that the conviction was based on a mere presumption of the ownership of the house. It was contended as to why would the appellant implicate himself by taking the police to his own house and witness them break the lock to recover contraband substances. The next day of search and seizure the appellant produced the registered sales deed before the police but the same was not investigated. The watchman Ghasiram was not examined nor were the Village Panchayat records with regard to the ownership of the house were investigated. The appellant contended that he was made an accused due to the failure of the police to investigate properly.

Respondent’s Contention:

The respondent stated that Tolaram one of the witnesses to the sales deed, denied being a witness for the same and alleged that his thumb-print was impersonated, he also said that he did not use his fingerprint rather signed his name in Hindi, therefore it was rightly held that the sales agreement was forged ; voters-list entry of 2008 proved Gangaram’s ownership of the house, it was said that the Gram Panchayat Record proved the same.

Observations of the Court:

The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of India, before Justice RF Nariman and Justice Navin Sinha. The court after hearing both sides made observations regarding the facts that the police went for search and seizure of contraband in Nimkhed village on 12-08-2009, where the appellant, the watchman Ghasiram and other villagers recognized the house as belonging to Gokul Dangi, the next day the appellant produced his sale agreement dated 26-06-2009 to the police but the same was not investigated by them and no explanation was provided for the same, the Gram-Panchayat records were also not investigated by the police officer who took over the case from the investigating police officer; the appellant was made an accused based on his ownership entry in the 2008 voters-list. The appellant was alleged to be using the said house not for living but as a storeroom however no evidence was found to support this claim. The police constables who were present during the search and seizure also identified the house as belonging to Gokul Dangi, this was proved by Gram Panchayat records. Further it was observed that the prosecution failed to examine Ghasiram who was a witness to both the registration of sales deed and the police search and seizure. No forensic report was made for confirming Tolaram’s denial of his thumbprint on the sale agreement.

The court relied on the observation in Noor Aga vs. State of Punjab case, that the right of the accused to a fair trial cannot be withheld under the NDPS Act, 1885; it was stated that only after the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt the facts then the burden of proof will shift on the accused for proving his innocence. It was held that the prosecution’s standard of proving guilt should be ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’ whereas the standard for the accused is ‘preponderance of probability.’ Conviction under stringent provisions of the NDPS Act, 1885 such as sections– 35, 37 and 54 does not do away with the requirement of the prosecution to establish a prima facie case based on foundational facts proved beyond reasonable doubt after investigation, the prosecution cannot make a case on preponderance of probability.

The court held that due to a faulty and failed police investigation that created unsurety of the house ownership and the absconding of Gokul Dangi, the police found it convenient to implicate the appellant so that they would atleast get one convicted; the court found merit in and upheld the appellant’s contentions. It said that the sale-agreement was not investigated, the Gram Panchayat records which would have been the best evidence were also not examined, and since the house was sold in 2009 the reliance on the 2008 Voters list for ownership of the house was inconsequential.

The court called the police investigation as faulty and shoddy in nature, it held that there was gross misappreciation of evidence by the Sessions Court and High Court, that the prosecution relied on a foundation of conjectures and surmises to conclude on a preponderance of probabilities the guilt of the appellant. The poor police investigation failed to establish a prima facie case and thus led to the conviction of the appellant for a crime he did not commit. The court said that the appellant had been denied a right to a fair investigation guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The court observed that it did not interfere with concurrent findings of facts into appreciation of evidence but when individual liberty was concerned due to insufficient evidence and prosecution’s failure to establish a prima facie case, the court would not be inhibited in protecting individual liberty.

Judgement:

The court held the conviction of the appellant as unsustainable and it was set aside. The appellant was acquitted and directed to be set at liberty.

The post Conviction under NDPS Act, 1985 to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt appeared first on LexForti .