Case Note & Summary
The appellant, a Japanese national, was convicted by the Special Judge of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Court, Mapusa, for offences under Section 8(c) read with Section 22(C) and 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985, for being in illegal possession of 1.81 grams of LSD liquid and 568 grams of charas. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of ₹1,00,000 for the LSD offence, and rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and a fine of ₹50,000 for the charas offence, with default sentences. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. The appeal was filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The factual matrix involved a raid conducted by the Anti-Narcotic Cell, Panaji, on 18 July 2013, based on secret information. The appellant was intercepted near a football ground in Vagator, Anjuna, while on a scooter. Upon search, a bag containing LSD liquid and charas was recovered. The prosecution examined eight witnesses, including police officers and panch witnesses. The appellant challenged the conviction on grounds of non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, delay in sending samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), and reliance on interested police witnesses. The court held that Section 50 was not applicable as the search was of a vehicle, not the person. The court also found that the delay in sending samples did not cause prejudice, and the evidence of police witnesses was credible. The court applied the presumption under Section 54 of the NDPS Act that the appellant was in conscious possession of the contraband, which the appellant failed to rebut. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.
Headnote
A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 8(c) read with Section 22(C) and 20(b)(ii)(B) - Illegal Possession of LSD and Charas - Conviction - The appellant was convicted for possessing 1.81 gms of LSD liquid and 568 gms of charas. The court upheld the conviction, holding that the prosecution proved conscious possession beyond reasonable doubt, and the procedural lapses did not vitiate the trial. (Paras 1-3) B) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 50 - Search of Person - Compliance - The court held that Section 50 of the NDPS Act was not applicable as the search was of a vehicle and not of the person. The recovery was from a bag on the scooter, not from the appellant's body. (Paras 4-6) C) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 114 - Presumption of Fact - Conscious Possession - The court applied the presumption under Section 54 of the NDPS Act that the appellant was in conscious possession of the contraband. The appellant failed to rebut this presumption. (Paras 7-9) D) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374 - Appeal Against Conviction - The court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the grounds raised regarding delay in FSL analysis, non-examination of independent witnesses, and credibility of police witnesses. (Paras 10-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 8(c) read with Section 22(C) and 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985, for possession of 1.81 gms of LSD liquid and 568 gms of charas, is sustainable in law, particularly in light of alleged non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, delay in sending samples to FSL, and reliance on police witnesses.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Judge, NDPS Court, Mapusa, dated 25/01/2016, are upheld.
Law Points
- Section 8(c) read with Section 22(C) and 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act
- 1985
- illegal possession of narcotic drugs
- LSD liquid
- charas
- search and seizure
- compliance with Section 50 of NDPS Act
- recovery of contraband
- conscious possession
- presumption under Section 54 of NDPS Act
- burden of proof
- credibility of police witnesses
- non-examination of independent witnesses
- delay in sending samples to FSL
- tampering of evidence
- conviction based on evidence of official witnesses
- sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment.
