Law: Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997

Section: 6,7,8,9(C)

Law: Customs Act, 1969

Section: 2(S),156(1)(8)(9)

(a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)---   ----Ss.6, 7, 8 9(c)---Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss.2(s) 156(1) (8)(89)---Appreciation of evidence---No contradiction on material points in the statements of prosecution witnesses had been found---Said witnesses were put to lengthy cross-examination by the defence, but they withstood the test on all material and relevant aspects---Nothing favourable to the accused could be elicited from the mouth of said prosecution witnesses so as to cause dent in prosecution case---Nothing had been brought on record by the accused to substantiate his assertion to the effect that he had been implicated in the case falsely and real culprit had been brought on record by the accused to substantiate his assertion to the effect that he had been implicated in the case falsely and real culprit had been allowed an opportunity to make good his escape in the nearby jungle by complainant police officer---No suggestion to such assertion was put to the witnesses when they were in the witness-box---When a specific plea was advanced by the accused, then burden shifted to him to prove same, but he failed, to do. so---Huge quantity of Charas could not   be thrust upon the accused in absence of any tangible cogent and concrete enmity, which had not been proved, by the accused---No proper defence had been set up before Trial Court by the accused---Prosecution having proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused,, conviction and sentence recorded by Trial Court against the accused, could not be interfered with in appeal, especially, when accused had failed to point out any illegality by way of misreading or non-reading of . evidence by the Trial Court, warranting interference by High Court in its Appellate jurisdiction.  (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---   ----S.397---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.6, 7, 8 9(c)---Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss.2(s) 156(1)(8)(80)---Benefit of S.397, Cr.P.C.---Claim for---Accused had asserted that Trial Court in subsequent trial had failed to give him benefit of 5.397, Cr.P.C. in violation of codified law---Validity---Accused in the present case…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492