Law: Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Section: XXV,9(c),29

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 340(2)

(a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)--- ----S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotic substances---Reappraisal of evidence--Prosecution case was that 1080-gram charas was recovered from the possession of accused-petitioner---Meticulous examination of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses unequivocally revealed that all material witnesses remained consistent and unanimous in their depositions to the extent that the convict-appellant was apprehended from F.W.O Turn and from his exclusive possession, charas weighing 1080 grams was recovered---No contradiction or inconsistency was elicited during cross-examination of the witnesses either with regard to the locus in quo (place of occurrence) or the quantity of the contraband recovered---It was alleged by defence that while the FIR recorded the place of apprehension as "F.W.O Turn , the prosecution witnesses, in their statements before the Court, stated that the apprehension took place near the "Revenue Complex", thereby suggesting a contradiction sufficient to cast doubt upon the prosecution's case---However, such contention was wholly misconceived and appeared to be a futile attempt to mislead the Court---It was imperative to clarify that the so-called divergence was purely superficial and did not carry any substantive weight, as both "F.W.O Turn" and the "Revenue Complex" were situated in close proximity, virtually at the same location and were commonly understood and referred to interchangeably within the local parlance---Minor variation in nomenclature could not, by any stretch of legal reasoning, be construed as a contradiction of material consequence so as to discredit the otherwise consistent and corroborated account of the prosecution witnesses---In such a factual paradigm, where the ocular and documentary evidence collectively pointed towards the unequivocal recovery of narcotic substance from the possession of the appellant, the prosecution's narrative remained unimpeached and suffered from no material infirmity that could merit the benefit of doubt---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case beyond shadow of doubt, however,…