NAWAL KISHORE Vs. STATE OF H.P.
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
STATE OF H.P.
Click here to view full judgement.
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J. -
(1.) Petitioner has been implicated in present case under Sections 20 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short 'NDPS Act') in case FIR No. 20 of 2020 dated 25.01.2020 registered in Police Station Patlikuhal, District Kullu (H.P.).
(2.) As per status report, filed on behalf of the respondent/State, petitioner has been named as a supplier by main accused Ajit Singh when he was arrested for having been found in possession of 1.78 Kg. Charas on 25.1.2019. Disclosure statement of main accused, naming the petitioner as supplier, has been substantiated by Call Detail Reports (CDRs) of mobile numbers of petitioner as well as main accused Ajit Singh. It is the case of prosecution that main accused Ajit Singh had purchased charas from petitioner for selling it further in retail.
(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner submits that main accused is denter by profession and petitioner is owner of Bolero Pickup and main accused had contacted petitioner on 24.1.2020 in connection with repair work of his Bolero and his conversation with main accused for that purpose cannot be considered to be a conversation for selling and purchasing the charas recovered from main accused. It is submitted on behalf of petitioner that no charas has been recovered from him and, therefore, reverse burden of proof under Sections 35 and 54 of NDPS Act is not applicable to petitioner and further that there is no conclusive and admissible evidence available on record against petitioner.
Further that as petitioner has been roped in the case only on the basis of statement of main accused, which, under law, is not admissible against petitioner and, therefore, there is every likelihood of his acquittal and therefore, judicial custody of petitioner during trial is unwarranted in this case. ;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.