Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
Section 22(b)—Recovery of Alprazolam salt—Intermediate quantity—Conviction—Two prosecution witnesses had clearly proved the recovery of 115 intoxicating tablets from the conscious possession of the appellant/accused, who had thrown the polythene pouch on the ground on seeing the police party—Even, third prosecution witness also categorically stated that recovery was effected from the present appellant and had supported the case of the prosecution—All the three witnesses were searchingly cross-examined, but their testimonies could not be impeached in any manner—Apart from that, from a perusal of the prosecution evidence, it was apparent that all the mandatory provisions of NDPS Act were complied with by the police officials while conducting the search and seizure—Even otherwise, the High Court has carefully perused the evidence led by the prosecution and found the same to be credible and trustworthy—Even, the prosecution witnesses have been cross-examined at length and there is no ground to disbelieve their truthful submissions—Still further, even, the appellant could not show that there was any material irregularity or illegality in the impugned judgment—Conviction upheld.
[Paras 9 & 10]
Section 22(b)—Recovery of Alprazolam salt—Reduction of sentence—Appellant has been facing the prosecution for the last more than 04 years and he has undergone the sentence of 02 months out of total sentence of 06 months—Appellant is a young man aged about 27 years and is sole bread winner of the family—Apart from that, he was never involved in any other criminal activity and as per the evidence, prior to the present FIR, he was staying abroad to earn his livelihood—Sentence imposed on the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him, however, the sentence of fine is increased to Rs.1,05,000—Appeal allowed in part.
[Para 11]