Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.53 seconds)Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 54 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Bhola Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab on 7 September, 1993
13. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the
appellants, that CFSL form, was not prepared, at the spot, by
the investigating officer, and, as such, the link in the chain of
prosecution evidence, became incomplete. He further submitted
that non-preparation of CFSL Form, at the spot, cast a cloud of
doubt, on the prosecution case, as also caused a prejudice to the
accused. He also placed reliance on Bhola Singh v. State of
Punjab, 2005(2) RCR 520, in support of his contention. It may
be stated here, that there is no provision in the Act, as also in
the Rules, framed thereunder, that the aforesaid form, should be
prepared, at the spot, and if it is not so prepared, then the trial,
conviction and sentence shall stand vitiated. The form is
required to be prepared, so as to send the same, along with the
sample parcel. Under these circumstances, if the same was not
prepared, at the spot, that did not transgress any provision of
the Act, or the Rules framed thereunder. Under these
circumstances, the Investigating Officer, did not commit any
irregularity or illegality, in not preparing the form, aforesaid, at
the spot, and rather preparing the same later on, at the time of
Crl. Appeal No. 263-SB of 2001
17
sending the sample parcel, to the Forensic Science Laboratory.
No prejudice has been caused to the appellant, on account of
non-preparation the said form, at the spot. The other evidence,
as stated above, is reliable and trust-worthy that none tampered
with the sample parcel, until the same reached the office of the
Forensic Science Laboratory. No help, therefore, can be drawn
by the Counsel for the appellants, therefrom. In this view of
the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellants,
being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
State Of Orissa vs Kanduri Sahoo on 4 December, 2003
In State of Orissa Vs. Kanduri Sahoo 2004(1)
RCR (Criminal) 196 (S.C.), it was held that mere delay in
sending the samples to the Laboratory, is not fatal, where
there is evidence that the seized articles remained in safe
custody. Since, it was proved that none tampered with the
Crl. Appeal No. 263-SB of 2001
20
sample, until the same was received, in the office of the
Forensic Science Laboratory, the submission of the Counsel
for the appellants, merely based on conjectures, does not hold
good. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid
authority, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case.
The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, in this
regard, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands
rejected.
Piara Singh vs State Of Punjab on 8 January, 1969
In Piara Singh Vs.
The State of Punjab 1982 C.L.R. (2) 447, a case decided by a
Full Bench of this Court, the seal, on the sample of illicit
liquor, recovered from the accused, was not entrusted to an
Crl. Appeal No. 263-SB of 2001
23
independent person forthwith. Similarly, the independent
person, though entrusted with the seal, by the Investigating
Officer, later on, was not produced as a witness. In these
circumstances, it was held that this fact alone, was not
sufficient to affect the merits of the trial, and the prosecution
case, could not be thrown out, on that score alone. It was
further held, in this case, that it was not incumbent upon the
Police Officer, to hand over the seal, to a third person
forthwith, and even, in cases, where he had done so, it was not
obligatory upon him, to produce such person, as a witness,
during trial, as there is no statutory requirement, whatsoever,
to this effect. The principle of law, laid down, in the
aforesaid authority, is fully applicable to the facts of the
present case. From the cogent, convincing, reliable, and
trustworthy evidence, produced by the prosecution, the
completion of link evidence was proved. In this view of the
matter, the finding of the trial Court, is endorsed.
Section 25 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 173 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Akmal Ahmad vs State Of Delhi on 24 March, 1999
In Akmal Ahmed Vs. State of Delhi, 1999(2)
RCC 297 (S.C.), it was held that, it is now well-settled that the
evidence of search or seizure, made by the police will not
become vitiated, solely for the reason that the same was not
supported by an independent witness.