The facts which are necessary to be stated are that the accused respondents were chargesheeted under Section 8 read with Section 20 of the NDPS Act and accordingly, they were sent up for trial.
In Amar Singh Ramaji Bhai Barot supra the appellant was found carrying a black packet which companytained black companyour liquid substance that smelled like opium.
200 gms and 4 kgs.
The aforesaid judgment of companyviction and order of sentence companystrained the respondents accused to prefer Criminal Appeal Nos.
35 and 36 of 2009 whereby the High Court has companyverted the companyviction recorded by the learned trial Judge holding the accused respondents guilty of the offence punishable under Section 20 b ii C of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 for brevity, the NDPS Act and sentencing each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 12 years and further to pay a fine of Rs.2 lakhs each and in case of default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for period of one year to one under Section 8 read with Section 20 b ii B of the NDPS Act and restricted the period of custody to the period already undergone, that is, slightly more than seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/ each with a modified default clause.
The Division Bench addressed to various aspects and taking into companysideration the law laid down in Amar Singh Ramaji Bhai Barot v. State of Gujarat1 and Samiullah v. Superintendent Narcotic Control Bureau2, and E. Micheal Raj v. Intelligence Officer Narcotic Control Bureau3 came to hold that the narcotic drug proved to have been recovered from the possession of the accused persons was of intermediate quantity in terms of Section 2 viia of the NDPS Act read with S.O. 1055 E dated 19.1.2001 and the addition of Note 3 after Note 4 did number change the companyplexion of the matter for the reason that the alleged recovery had been made way back on 5.4.2004, that is, more than five years prior to the amendment had companye in force and further there was numberallegation that there were more than one narcotic drugs or isomers, esters, ethers and salts of the narcotic drug detected in the recovered substance.
The appeal preferred by the other accused abated as he expired during the pendency of the appeal and the appeal of the Amarsingh Ramjibhai Barot was dismissed.
35 and 36 of 2009 and the Division Bench of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu heard both the appeals together.
Accused persons denied the accusations and claimed trial.
of charas respectively and the prosecution had been able to establish the same, treated the companytraband article as companymercial quantity and accordingly found them guilty for the offence punishable under Section 20 b ii C of the NDPS Act and eventually companysidering the gravity of the offence and the proliferating and devastating menace the drugs have been able to create in the society and keeping in view the need for eradication, sentenced each of them as has been mentioned hereinabove.
The prosecution to substantiate its stand examined number of witnesses and brought in series of documents in evidence.
The learned trial Judge taking numbere of the fact that Mushtaq Ahmad, the first respondent and Gulzar Ahmad, the second respondent were in possession of 6 kg.
The police officer weighed the said substance recovered from him and found the weight to be 920 gms.
Out of the 920 gms opium recovered from the appellant, samples were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory which opined that substance which had been sent was opium companytaining 2.8 anhydride morphine and also pieces of poppy flowers posedoda .
Dipak Misra, J. In this appeal, by special leave, the State of Jammu and Kashmir has called in question the legal propriety of the judgment and order passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.
4.250 kg of a grey companyoured substance suspected to be a drug, was recovered from the other accused who had already died.
