Case Note & Summary
The petitioner was convicted under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) by the trial court, and the conviction was upheld by the appellate court. The petitioner then filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Bombay at Goa, challenging the concurrent findings of fact. The High Court examined the scope of its writ jurisdiction and held that it cannot reappreciate evidence or interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The court found that the findings of the courts below were based on evidence and were not perverse. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Concurrent Findings of Fact - Writ Jurisdiction - The petitioner challenged his conviction under the NDPS Act by filing a writ petition before the High Court. The court held that in exercise of writ jurisdiction, it cannot reappreciate evidence or interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The petition was dismissed as no such perversity was shown. (Paras 1-27) B) Criminal Procedure - Writ Jurisdiction - Scope of Interference - The court reiterated that the High Court under Article 226 does not act as a court of appeal and cannot substitute its own findings for those of the trial court and appellate court unless the findings are wholly unsupported by evidence or suffer from grave illegality. (Paras 1-27)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by courts below in a criminal case under the NDPS Act.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed; conviction under NDPS Act upheld
Law Points
- Concurrent findings of fact
- limited scope of writ jurisdiction
- no reappreciation of evidence
- NDPS Act conviction upheld
