![]() ![]() Mangilal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh | 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 549 | 2023 INSC 634 Giving benefit of doubt to the accused, the bench allowed the appeal and acquitted him. Reappreciating the evidence on record, the bench found that there are too many material irregularities which create a serious doubt on the very case of the prosecution. Non-production of a physical evidence would lead to a negative inference within the meaning of Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as the Evidence Act)." One has to remember that the provisions of the NDPS Act are both stringent and rigorous and therefore the burden heavily lies on the prosecution. Production of seized material is a factor to establish seizure followed by recovery. The onus is entirely on the prosecution in a given case to satisfy the Court when such an issue arises for consideration. A Court should be satisfied with such compliance while deciding the case. ![]() Section 52A of the NDPS Act is a mandatory rule of evidence which requires the physical presence of a Magistrate followed by an order facilitating his approval either for certifying an inventory or for a photograph taken apart from list of samples drawn.Before any proposed disposal/destruction mandate of Section 52A of the NPDS Act requires to be duly complied with starting with an application to that effect. "The obvious reason behind this provision is to inject fair play in the process of investigation. ![]() Taking note of this provision, the bench observed. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |