Conviction set aside for non-compliance with statutory provisions and lack of scientific evidence in the case of Tilakdhari Yadav.
In a significant ruling, the Patna High Court has overturned the conviction of Tilakdhari Yadav, who was previously sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, for possession and sale of ganja. The court cited non-compliance with mandatory legal provisions, absence of forensic evidence, and contradictions in the prosecution's case as primary reasons for setting aside the conviction.
The appeal, heard by Justice Alok Kumar Pandey, highlighted several procedural shortcomings, including the prosecution's failure to adhere to the mandatory requirement under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, which mandates informing the accused of their right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. The lack of a Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report confirming the seized substance as ganja further weakened the prosecution's case.
The court also noted the inconsistencies in witness testimonies and the absence of corroborative evidence from independent witnesses, who turned hostile during the trial. The failure to establish the exact location of the alleged crime scene further complicated the prosecution's narrative.
Justice Pandey emphasized the importance of strict compliance with procedural safeguards in NDPS cases, given the severe penalties involved. The judgment underscored the prosecution's inability to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
This decision serves as a reminder of the judiciary's role in ensuring that convictions are based on robust evidence and adherence to legal protocols. The court's ruling is expected to have implications for similar cases, reinforcing the necessity for meticulous adherence to statutory requirements in drug-related prosecutions.
Bottom Line:
NDPS Act - Conviction under Section 20(b) set aside due to non-compliance of mandatory provisions, lack of FSL report, and contradictions in prosecution evidence.
Statutory provision(s): Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 20(b), Section 50; Criminal Procedure Code, Section 313
Tilakhdhari Yadav v. State of Bihar, (Patna) : Law Finder Doc id # 2872971
