0

The FSL report cannot be read as evidence when samples aren’t drawn in compliance with S.52A: Supreme Court

Case Title : Mohammed Khalid and another versus The state of Telangana

Case No: Criminal Appeal No(s).1610 of 2023

Decided on: 10th November,2022.

Quorum: Judge Mehta

Facts of the case:

Mr.M.Srinavasa Rao, Inspector of Police received an information on 8th May,2009 regarding that the transportation of ganja by two persons from Sangareddy to Hyderabad in a Toyota Qualis Vehicle. It is alleged that three bundles of ganja weighing 80kgs found lying in the vehicle were seized. Both the persons were arrested and interrogated at the spot itself. Three samples weighing about 50 grams were drawn from each bundle and remaining muddamal ganja. Another sample was sent for investigation. After that charge sheet has filed on them. They sent for an appeal to high court. First time high court rejects and then after asking again for an appeal they will reconsider it. And they reinvestigate the case. Three samples were changed into 7 samples. That samples does not have any seals or identification marks .So they will not consider it as an evidence because it is not in a correct way.

Legal Provisions:

Section 20(b) of NDPS Act it deals with Narcotic drugs.

Section 313 of CrPC it deals that it questions the accused.

Section 374(2) of CrPC it deals that high court rejects judgement of trial court.

 Contentions:

They go to appeal in high court and the evidences which are produced by police are not under safe custody. Both the accused were caught red handed in the vehicle with drugs. When they investigated and they said that they are supplying for two persons.

Court Analysis and Judgement:

It passed to high court of state of Telangana on 10th November,2022.Trial court sentenced that each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period 10 years and to pay fine of 1 lakh each. The evidences are reconsidered. But the evidences are not sealed by the trail court. They didn’t even took permission from the court regarding changing the evidences as 3 bags to 7 bags. The evidences are not in safe custody. So they cannot consider these evidences for the case. Affirming the judgment of the trial court convicting and sentencing the accused appellants for the charge under Section 8(c)read with 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellants are acquitted of all the charges. They are in custody and shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. The appeals are accordingly allowed.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Analysis Written by – K. Immey Grace

Click here to view judgement

0
Drug crime

The Bombay High Court at Goa grants bail to Nigerian national found in possession of drugs on the grounds that the criminal precedents cannot prevent his facility for bail.

The Bombay High Court at Goa grants bail to Nigerian national found in possession of drugs on the grounds that the criminal precedents cannot prevent his facility for bail.

Title: Geoffrey Samuel Kelvin v. State

Decided on: July 10, 2023

Citation: 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1368

CORAM: HON’BLE JUSTICE M.S. KARNIK

Introduction

The Bombay High Court at Goa grants bail to a Nigerian national found in possession of drugs on the grounds that the criminal precedents cannot prevent him from using his facility for bail.

Facts of the Case

This is an application for bail for the offence registered against Nigerian National and holder of a Nigerian Passport. The applicant was apprehended and was found in possession of 20 gms of cocaine and 8 gms of MDMA. The quantity was however below the commercial quantity prescribed under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The offence was registered against the applicant under Section 21(b) and 22(b) of Narcotics Drugs Act, 1985.

Court Analysis and Judgement:

The Court took account of the fact that have been two criminal precedents against the applicant in the past. The first is an offence registered as far back in 2012 where the applicant was found with 10 gms of cocaine, again a variable quantity. In 2016, the applicant was arrested with 3.8 gms of Methamphetamine again a variable quantity. The trial in respect of these offences is still pending. However, the Court took into consideration the distance of time between the present offence and those registered earlier. According to the judge, the applicant should not be deprived the facility of bail only on the ground of criminal antecedents. The judge also found that the trial is likely to take a long time to conclude. Hence, bail was granted for Rs. 1,00,000.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 Written by- Reema Nayak

Click to view judgement

0

Accused acquitted under section 22(c) of the NDPS Act by Punjab high court

TITLE: Gurjinder Singh v State of Punjab

Decided On-:01.6.2023

CRA-S-2808-2019 (O&M)

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr. Sandeep Moudgil

INTRODUCTION-   The trial judge in question, a learned trial judge who presided over the case under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act, then proceeded to record a finding of guilt against the defendant. The accused convict has made the decision to file the current criminal appeal before this Court because he is dissatisfied with the above-drawn verdict of conviction as well as the subsequent sentences of imprisonment and fine that the learned convicting Court concerned imposed upon him.

FACTS OF THE CASE-

According to the case’s facts, Along with other law enforcement officers, ASI Nirmal Singh, who was assigned to PS Balachaur in the District of SBS Nagar, was out on patrol to check for dishonest characters travelling from Majaari to the direction of Mehndpur. When the police party arrived close to the Village Mehndpur cremation ground, they saw four people exiting a tube well in Jarnail Singh’s fields. They became terrified at the sight of the police party and tried to flee. They were also being pursued by the police, who caught one of them after he had collapsed in some fields. The person who was caught threw a polythene bag into the fields from his pocket. The bag in question was torn when it was picked up by the investigating officer. The aforementioned bag included four Dispovan-branded syringes, three injections, and intoxicating powder.

He identified himself and his address as Gurjinder Singh @ Ginda when questioned. He then weighed the potent polythene bag that Gurjinder Singh had thrown into the fields and that he had picked up; the weight of the bag was 372 gms. Three injections and four syringes were also placed in another parcel along with the aforementioned intoxicating powder. He sealed both packages with his seal, which had the impression “NS.” The suspect was taken into custody and thoroughly searched. The formal FIR was registered based on the rule that the investigating officer had prepared.

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

As a result, he went on to file a charge against the defendant for a violation of Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act. The accused was presented with the previously stated charge; he pleaded not guilty and demanded a trial.  The prosecution used five witnesses to support its case, and the learned public prosecutor in question then concluded the prosecution’s evidence. However, the prosecution has been able to present convincing evidence that the seizure was recovered, carried out at the crime scene, and then sealed with the appropriate seal impressions. However, reading the FSL report (supra) also reveals that the sealed cloth parcels were received there, keeping the seal impressions on them intact.It would seem that the material was placed in loose cloth parcels after being examined by the concerned chemical examiner, and that these loose cloth parcels were then sent to the person in charge of the malkhana in an unsealed condition.

“The result of the above discussion, is that, this Court finds merit in the appeal, and, is constrained to allow it. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment convicting, and, sentencing the appellant, and, as become recorded by the learned trial Judge concerned, is quashed, and, set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge framed against him.”

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by-  Steffi Desousa

 

Click here to view judgement