NDPS ACT
WHATSAPP 91-8075113965
(Querist) 04 April 2010
This query is : Open
I am appearing for the accused in a narcotic case and it is posted for final hearing.
Facts of the case is as follows :
Please guide me .
Offence u/s 20 (b) NDPS ACT.
ALLEGATION :-
Accused was found carrying 36 gms of ganja, in a plastic carry bag and he was arrested in a public place, on a casual search by the excice officials. ( no prior information).
Prosecution has examined 5 witnesses, and marked 6 documents.
Pw1 and pw4 - arresting officers
Pw2 and pw3- independent witnesses, ( not supported prosecution story ) but they were cross-examined by the prosecutor, without declaring hostile. is it permissible ?
Pw5 – investigation officer
Documents :-
P1 – seizure mahassr
P2 –arrest memo
P3-consent letter u/s 50 ndps by accused , to be searched by the arresting officers themselves( stating that there is no need of magistrate or gazette officers)
P4-occurance rport
P5-property list
P6-chemical analysis report
P7-inspection memo
M.O WAS NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE COURT, NOR MARKED.
BUT, THE PROPERTY LIST SHOWS THAT IT WAS SENT TO THE COURT, AND THE COURT HAS RECEIVED IT ON THE SAME DAY…..WHETHER ACCUSED IS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT IN THIS REGARD ?
Grounds, I believe worth noting are :-
NO M.O WAS MARKED
INDEPENDENT WITNESSES ARE NOT OF THE LOCALITY
INDEPENDENT WITNESSES, NOT SUPPORTED THE PROSECUTION STORY
NO ENDORCEMENT IN THE ARREST MEMO , THAT ARREST OF THE ACCUSED WAS INFORMED TO HIS RELATIVES, BUT IT IS THERE IN THE P7 INSPECTION MEMO
PW 1 AND 4 SAYS THAT THERE IS NO COLUMN IN P2 FOR THAT. THAT’S WHY A SPECIAL P7 WAS PREPARED. BUT, AS PER DK BASU V/S UNION OF INDIA, IS IT NOT MANDATORY, TO INCLUDE IT , IN THE ARREST MEMO , ITSELF ?
NO REPORT U/S 57 IS MARKED. BUT SIMPLY STATED IN THE MAHASSAR THAT AFTER COMPLYING SEC 57, PROPERTY AND MAHASSAR WERE SENT TO COURT. IS IT SUFFICIENT ?
NO FOREWARDING NOTE WAS MARKED.BUT, ANALYST REPORT IS MARKED . IS IT SUFFICIENT ?
I am told that in NDPS CASES, there a lot of citations that before conducting search of an accused. The arresting officers has to offer their personal search to the accused, to avoid implanting of contraband articles.please give me any one of such citations .
Accused has signed in p3 consent letter. But, but p2 arrest memo bears accused “s thumb impression , not signature ! its legal consequence ?
Is sec 50 mandatory in cases or consent letter from accused , while in custody is sufficient ?
Ref : 2002(2)KLT 211 (SC)
PLEASE GIVE MAXIMUM CITATIONS FOR THE ABOVE GROUNDS .
RESPECTFULLY,
SD/-
SALILKUMAR.P
ADVOCATE
THALASSERY
