Professional Documents
Culture Documents
R 47
TEAM CODE: R 47
SATNAM SINGH
... APPELLANT-1
BALBIR SINGH
APPELLANT-2
V.
RESPONDENT
STATE OF PUNJAB
1|Page
R 47
TABLE OF CONTENTS
S. NO.
PARTICULARS
PAGE NO.
1.
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Ii
2.
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Iii
3.
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
4.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Ix
5.
ISSUES RAISED
Xi
6.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
Xii
7.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1-20
I.
Viii
II.
III.
i|Page
R 47
V.
8.
21
PRAYER
ii | P a g e
R 47
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
S. NO.
ABBREVIATION
FULL FORM
1.
&
And
2.
Section
3.
Alias
4.
AIR
5.
Anr.
Another
6.
CrLJ
7.
CrPC
8.
DW
Defence Witness
9.
ed.
Edition
10.
HC
High Court
11.
NCB
12.
NDPS
13.
NOC
Notes on Cases
14.
Ors.
Others
15.
PW
Prosecution Witness
16.
P&H
17.
r/w
Read with
18.
SC
Supreme Court
19.
SCALE
20.
SCC
21.
SI
Sub Inspector
22.
thr
Through
23.
v.
Versus
iii | P a g e
R 47
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
BOOKS REFERRED:
S. NO.
1.
BOOK NAME
Dibyajyoti De, Guide to Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act
(Wadhwa& Co., Nagpur 2003).
Dr. M.C. Mehanathan, Law of Control on Narcotic Drugs and
2.
2 Dr. V. Kesava Rao, Sir John Woodroffe & Syed Ameer Alis Law Of Evidence
(18th ed. Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa, Ngpur 2008)
4.
Justice C.K. Thakker, Law of Evidence (2nd ed.Whytes& Co., New Delhi 2015)
5.
6.
Sir John Woodroff, Code of Criminal Procedure (3rd ed. Law Publishers Pvt.
Ltd., Allahabad 2009)
STATUTES REFERRED:
S. NO.
1.
2.
3.
RULES REFERRED:
S. NO.
1.
iv | P a g e
R 47
NCB INSTRUCTIONS
2.
JOURNAL REFERRED:
S. NO.
1.
2015, 11.
WEBSITES REFERRED:
S.NO.
1.
www.airwebworld.com
2.
www.judis.nic.in
3.
www.manupatra.com
4.
www.scconline.com
CASES REFERRED:
S. NO.
CASE NAME
CITATION
PG. NO.
2015 Cri. L. J.
Bengal
2.
3.
1.
Pradesh
4.
5.
12
6.
7.
8.
v|Page
R 47
(Utt.)
10.
11.
13
(H.P.)
12.
2012 Cri. L. J.
12
14.
13
441
15.
Customs
16.
10
17.
M. Nityanandam v. State
(Narcotics) 681
18.
12
(S.C.)
19.
20.
1978Mh.L.J.609
21
21.
CRM No.16764 of
14
2014.
22.
23.
12
vi | P a g e
R 47
21
(S.C.).
25.
Sriskandaraja v. State
2014-2-L.W.(Crl.)515
21
26.
27.
28.
15
29.
SupapornPatsak v. State
11
30.
14, 16
31.
10
160 (M.P.)
32. Vutukuru Lakshmaiah v.State of Andhra Pradesh
19
vii | P a g e
R 47
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana is empowered to hear this appeal by virtue of
36B1 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Act, 1985 which deals with appeal from
Special Court r/w 374(2)2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which deals with appeal
against conviction.
36B. Appeal and revision.The High Court may exercise, so far as may be applicable, all the powers conferred by Chapters XXIX and
XXX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), on a High Court, as if a Special Court within the
local limits of the jurisdiction of the High Court were a Court of Session trying cases within the local limits of
the jurisdiction of the High Court.
2
374. Appeals from convictions.
(1) Any person convicted on a trial held by a High Court in its extraordinary original criminal jurisdiction may
appeal to the Supreme Court.
(2) Any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge or on a trial held
by any other Court in which a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years has been passed against him
or against any other person convicted at the same trial; may appeal to the High Court.
(3) Save as otherwise provided in sub- (2), any person,(a) convicted on a trial held by a Metropolitan Magistrate or Assistant Sessions Judge or Magistrate of the first
class or of the second class, or
(b) sentenced under 325, or
(c) in respect of whom an order has been made or a sentence has been passed under 360 by any Magistrate,
may appeal to the Court of Session.
viii | P a g e
R 47
STATEMENT OF FACTS
I.
TRIAL AND APPEAL
1. Satnam Singh, Balbir Singh and Kuldeep Kaur were tried by the Special Court for
offences under NDPS Act, 1985. As a result, Satnam Singh and Balbir Singh were
convicted and Kuldeep Kaur was acquitted. Dissatisfied by the decision of the trial court,
both the convicts have preferred an appeal in the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
II.
PROSECUTION VERSION AT THE TRIAL
2. Both the Appellants were halted at Naka at around 7:30 p.m. on 8th of January for the
search of the vehicle. Satnam Singh hesitated for the search. Nevertheless, the search was
conducted and a bag was found in the rear of the car. The search of the bag was
conducted in the presence of two independent witnesses, Deena Nath and Sardul Singh,
from which 1950 grams of opium was found. Satnam Singh ran away from the spot.
Thereafter, personal search of Balbir Singh was conducted after giving him a due option
of being searched in front of Magistrate or Gazetted Officer. He submitted to search by
police officer. 80 grams of opium was found from him too.
3. All the material was taken to the police station and the matter was reported to the SHO.
FIR was registered in the morning of 9th of January. Satnam Singh was arrested from his
home. The seized material was sent to FSL for examination. After due investigation and
interrogation, police report was filed under 173(2) of CrPC. Trial was commenced and
prosecution tried to base its case by examining its witnesses, submitting the reports of
ix | P a g e
R 47
FSL, submitting the ownership proof of vehicle in the name of Kuldeep Kaur and
tendering the copy of judgment regarding the previous conviction of Balbir Singh in
2005. Examination of all the accused was also done u/s 313 of CrPC.
III.
DEFENCE VERSION AT THE TRIAL
4. The defence pleaded that the accused have been falsely implicated. As there was a dispute
between Satnam Singh and one Shamsher Singh regarding boundary wall, which
Shamsher Singh encroached upon taking benefit of his absence. He was a person with
influential links.
5. Satnam Singh went to the police station to report about the said incident. His complaint
was marked by SHO to SI Hakam Singh. He asked Satnam Singh to meet him at the Naka
Duty in the evening. When he actually went there, he was taken to the police station and
was put in lock up.
6. Sardul Singh deposed on behalf of the defence and said that he did not witness any search
and his signatures on some papers were taken on the next day.
7. Defence pleaded that Deena Nath is a gambler and a stooge of police. It also pleaded that
Hakam Singh was out to favour Shamsher Singh.
IV.
DECISION OF SPECIAL COURT
8. The Special Court, after considering all the material on record, convicted Satnam Singh
and Balbir Singh of offences u/s 8(c) and 18(c). Balbir Singh was also convicted u/s 31 of
NDPS Act, 1985. The court acquitted Kuldeep Kaur of all charges.
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
x|Page
R 47
ISSUES RAISED
THE RESPONDENT RESPECTFULLY ASKS THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT,
THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
ISSUE-I
WHETHER THE RESPONDENT HAS PROVED THE ALLEGED OFFENCE AGAINST THE
APPELLANTS?
ISSUE-II
WHETHER THE APPELLANTS HAVE BEEN FALSELY IMPLICATED?
ISSUE-III
WHETHER THE PROCEDURE ALLEGED TO BE ADOPTED IN SEARCH AND SEIZURE STANDS THE
SCRUTINY OF LAW?
ISSUE-IV
WHETHER THE PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS UNDER 50 OF NDPS ACT, 1985 HAVE BEEN
COMPLIED WITH?
ISSUE-V
WHETHER THE ENHANCEMENT OF SENTENCE BASED ON PREVIOUS CONVICTION IS VALID?
xi | P a g e
R 47
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE-I
WHETHER RESPONDENT HAS ESTABLISHED THE COMMISSION OF ALLEGED OFFENCE AGAINST
THE APPELLANTS?
It is submitted that all the necessary essentials to prove the offences under the NDPS Act
have been satisfied which are presence, conscious possession and recovery of the material.
Hence, the conviction of both the Appellants should be upheld and they should be convicted
u/s 8 (c) and 18(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985.
ISSUE-II
WHETHER THE APPELLANTS HAVE BEEN FALSELY IMPLICATED?
It is submitted that no false case has been planted against the Appellants. There is no delay in
filing the FIR. And the delay in sending the samples to FSL, Chandigarh has not caused any
prejudice to the accused. Moreover, there are certain discrepancies in the defence version
itself which create doubt in their story.
ISSUE-III
WHETHER THE PROCEDURE ALLEGED TO BE ADOPTED IN SEARCH AND SEIZURE STANDS THE
SCRUTINY OF LAW OR NOT?
It is submitted that the procedure adopted stands the scrutiny of law as one witness has turned
hostile and there are certain facts which he himself has admitted. Secondly, the other witness
is an independent and respected witness as required by CrPC and his independence cannot be
xii | P a g e
R 47
doubted on mere allegations. Lastly, even if the statement of both the witness is kept out of
consideration then also, conviction can be based solely on official witnesses.
ISSUE-IV
WHETHER THE PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS UNDER 50 OF NDPS ACT, 1985 HAVE BEEN
COMPLIED WITH OR NOT?
It is submitted that it was not required to comply with 50 as it was a chance recovery.
Moreover, 50 has no application in case of search of a vehicle. Even if, it needed to be
complied with, then also, there is no prescribed format in which the person to be searched
should be informed about his right and in the light of decided judgments of the Honble SC it
is compliance of 50 and the right need not be informed in writing. Thus, the requirements
under 50 have been complied with.
ISSUE-V
WHETHER THE ENHANCEMENT OF SENTENCE BASED ON PREVIOUS CONVICTION IS VALID?
It is submitted that the charge for previous conviction was duly framed after the conviction
for subsequent offence was upheld as per due criminal procedure. In arguendo, even omission
to frame charge is curable if the accused had knowledge of what he is being tried for and the
mode of trial does not change. Also, there was proper evidence on record as proof of his
previous conviction. And, no prejudice has been caused due to questions asked under Section
313 Cr.P.C.
xiii | P a g e
R 47
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
I.
1. It is submitted that all the necessary components to prove the offences under the NDPS
Act
have
been
proved
and
hence,
the
conviction
should
be
upheld.
Facts admitted need not be proved. No fact need to be proved in any proceeding which the parties thereto
or their agents agree to admit at the hearing, or which, before the hearing, they agree to admit by any writing
under their hands, or which by any rule of pleading in force at the time they are deemed to have admitted by
their pleadings: Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require the facts admitted to be proved otherwise
than by such admissions.
1|Page
R 47
2|Page
R 47
drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance has been manufactured, for the possession of which he
fails to account satisfactorily.
7
Khan RukhsenaBanoo v.Asstt.Collector of Customs, 1994 Cri.L.J. 785 (Bom.) (D.B.).
8
Dibyajyoti De, Guide to Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 685 (Wadhwa& Co., Nagpur 2003).
9
Dharampal Singh v State of Punjab, (2010) 9 S.C.C. 608.
10
Presumption of culpable mental state.
(1) In any prosecution for an offence under this Act which requires a culpable mental state of the accused, the
Court shall presume the existence of such mental state but it shall be a defence for the accused to prove the fact
that he had no such mental state with respect to the act charged as an offence in that prosecution.
Explanation -- In this "culpable mental state" includes intention, motive, knowledge of a fact and belief in, or
reason to believe, a fact.
(2) For the purpose of this , a fact is said to be proved only when the Court believes it to exist beyond a
reasonable doubt and not merely when its existence is established by a preponderance of probability".
3|Page
R 47
the court has no option but to presume that the accused was in conscious possession of the
contraband.
Appellant-1: It is humbly submitted that when the police seized a heavy recovery
of two kg opium, Appellant-1 absconded from the spot, while the officers were
busy in searching for further recovery. It has been held in a case11, regarding
absconding accused that there are positive statements by several prosecution
witnesses that he ran away on seeing the police party and these statements have
withstood the test of cross examination as well. Further, no other evidence was
led to disprove the fact of running away of accused. So, we are of the view that the
High Court and the Trial Court is based on conjecture and assumption.
Appellant-2: That the Appellant after been given notice under 50 of NDPS Act,
was personally searched through which a packet of opium of about 50 gm was
found. Moreover, during investigation it was found that he had agreed to sell off
the opium brought from Rajasthan by Appellant-1 which was delivered to him
during the return journey to Patiala from Nabha on 8th January, 2015.
8. That similarly has been held in the case12 where a bag was kept in the rear seat of the car
which contained poppy husk to which the Court held that from the recovery of poppy husk
from that car, it is believed that the accused were in possession of poppy husk. Under
these circumstances and as per 35 of the Act, it shall be a defence for the accused to
prove the fact that he had no such mental state with respect to the act charged as offences
in that prosecution. The degree of burden of proof is 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.
11
12
4|Page
R 47
D. THAT THE RECOVERY OF THE CONTRABAND WAS AFFECTED FROM THE APPELLANTS
9. It is submitted that as per 71 of Indian Evidence Act13, other evidence can be lead to
prove the execution of the document so that the fate of the attested document does not lie
at the mercy of an attesting witness. If he turns hostile other evidence may be given. Such
document may then be proved in the same manner as documents not required to be
attested. Before the Section can be applied it is necessary to comply with 68 Evidence
Act, and to call as a witness one at least of the attesting witness. The principle is well
settled that the Court may take into consideration the circumstances of the case and come
to the conclusion that they are willfully misleading the Court and discard their testimony
and pronounce in favour of the document.14
Recovery Memo: It is a known fact that signature of accused is not required on
the recovery memo15. The recovery memo of two packets has been duly
signed by Sardul Singh (PW-1) and Sardul Singh (PW-2) as independent
witnesses.
Search Memo: It is the undisputed fact that a written notice is not necessary
and an oral explanation is good enough.16 During personal search of
Appellant-2, apart from the personal belongings, opium like substance of
about 50 grams. Search memo was prepared and signed by the said
independent witnesses and also by SI Hakam Singh and Head Constable
Narotam Singh.
10. Thus, the Respondent has produced various witnesses who have been subjected to the
hot-seat of cross-examination. Still the Appellants could not discredit their
13
5|Page
R 47
trustworthiness.
II.
11. It is submitted that no false case has been planted by the Respondent and it is a
genuine recovery that has taken place. The case of the prosecution must not be struck
down
merely
because
there
are
some
procedural
flaws.
17
6|Page
R 47
7|Page
R 47
Evidence of terms of contracts, grants and other dispositions of property reduced to form of
documents.When the terms of a contract, or of a grant, or of any other disposition of property, have been
reduced to the form of a document, and in all cases in which any matter is required by law to be reduced to the
form of a document, no evidence1 shall be given in proof of the terms of such contract, grant or other
disposition of property, or of such matter, except the document itself, or secondary evidence of its contents in
cases in which secondary evidence is admissible under the provisions hereinbefore contained.
24
63 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872
25
Proof of documents by production of certified copies.Such certified copies may be produced in proof of
the contents of the public documents or parts of the public documents of which they purport to be copies.
8|Page
III.
R 47
18. It is submitted that a proper procedure has been followed during the search and
seizure of the vehicle and the person of Appellant No. 2.
26
9|Page
R 47
that merely because independent witnesses of search and seizure turned hostile, Police
Official witnesses could not be disbelieved for extending acquittal to accused. Hence,
conviction of accused, proper.
23. It is humbly submitted that the fact that Sardul Singh, PW-2/ DW-1 has been won
over by the Defence and it is not appropriate to rely on his evidence. He has been won
over by the Appellants has been substantiated inasmuch as he has been examined as
defence witness. Similarly was observed in Kulwinder Singh v State of Punjab.30
24. Moreover, it is already established that DW-1 was present as witness as the scene of
crime. The onus of proof lies upon him to show his presence elsewhere under 11 of
Indian Evidence Act31 . It is submitted that there is no force behind the deposition of
DW-1 that he was not present at the scene of the crime when he has never denied
identification of both the accused.
25. It is submitted that burden of proof lies upon DW-1 under 106 of Indian Evidence
Act as to explain the circumstances or compulsions in which they had to sign the
blank papers. The Special Court ought to have looked into it in proper perspective,
thus convicting the accused of the alleged offence.
26. Even if, the court finds that his statement is not credible, his statement may be kept
out of consideration and case can be based solely on official witnesses and the other
independent witnesses.
B. THAT PW-1 IS AN INDEPENDENT AND RELIABLE WITNESS
27. It is humbly submitted that Patiala-Nabha road is a Highway road, generally deserted
and isolated at evening time. Moreover, the seizure was effected in the month of
30
10 | P a g e
R 47
January when winter is at its peak. It is a tough break situation to request people to
bear witness to the search proceeding on a highway as people generally show
disinclination to involve themselves with any criminal proceeding.
28. Thus, learning from past jarring experiences to arrange independent witnesses, the
Sub-Inspector had to call on phone one Deena Nath, a resident of nearby village
Ranbirpura to bear as independent witness in the search and seizure proceedings. In a
case32 where there was recovery of contraband from airport by DRI. Assistant
Supervisor of the Airport, who was also the witness in another case of the DRI, was
made as a witness in the instant case. It was held that Raids by the DRI are largely
effected at the International Airports and this is a well-known fact. It is also fairly
common that persons who are easily available in this sector would be requisitioned as
public witnesses and in such an eventuality, PW16 having joined investigation in
another prosecution (wholly unconnected with the present case) by the DRI would not
make him a stock witness. A stock witness is a person who is engrained time and
again by the same Department to toe the line of the prosecution without any
independent information.
29. It has been held that where the facts do not show as to in how many occasions, the
panch witness had stood as a panch witness and, therefore if a person happened to
witness other instances that would not denude him of his independent character,
would not be of any significance to the case.33 Merely because a witness had in the
past appeared as a prosecution witness in two cases, would not render him to be
labeled as a stock witness in the absence of any other evidence to show that he was a
stock witness.34
32
11 | P a g e
R 47
30. It is humbly submitted that Police Officers have not tried to hide this fact that Deena
Nath was called on phone and also that he acted as witness in few other cases
(unrelated to the present case).
31. In arguendo, while not conceding the fact that PW-1 is a stock witness. The Apex
Court has held that in peculiar circumstances of the case, it may not be possible to
find out independent witnesses at all places at all times. Independent witnesses who
live in the same village or nearby villages of the accused are at times afraid to come
and depose in favour of the prosecution. Though it is well settled that a conviction can
be based solely on the testimony of official witnesses, condition precedent is that the
evidence of such official witnesses must inspire confidence.35
32. Also, the burden of proof to prove that Deena Nath was a gambler lies on the
Appellants under 103 of Indian Evidence Act36 lies on the Defence/Appellant which
they have utterly failed to prove at trial stage.
12 | P a g e
R 47
34. It has been held in a case38 since the place was a secluded one, it was a public road,
there is no need to make a search in the presence of independent witnesses nor is it a
requirement of law. The statements of official witnesses of the recovery are consistent
and confidence inspiring thus rightly acted upon by the learned trial Court.
35. In the case39 it was held that if the testimony of the police officer is found to be
reliable and trustworthy, the Court can definitely act upon the same. The Court cannot
disbelieve the testimony of police officials solely on the presumption that a witness
from the department of police should be viewed with distrust.
36. It is submitted that the learned Special Court found the testimony of prosecution
witnesses unimpeachable and without any material contradiction. Moreover, Test
Triplicate memo and other documents were prepared on the spot which proves the
fact of incident.
13 | P a g e
R 47
39. In Navdeep Singh v. State of Haryana40, in which the police party held a picket an
option was given to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate.
The court opined that a substantial question was put across the appellant as to whether
he chooses to be searched by a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate and stated In our
opinion, the provisions do not prescribed any set format for such notice. The essence
is to appraise the accused of his legal right of being searched either by a Gazetted
Officer or a Magistrate. Here, when the Appellant was apprised of his statutory rights
under 50 by PW-3 and opts to be searched by a Gazetted Officer, then he has, by
necessary implication, consciously exercised his right. In that view of the matter, we
cannot accept the submission of the learned counsel for the Appellant that the
mandatory provisions of 50 of the Act were breached.
40. In Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat41, the Apex Court went on to
saying that, Needless to add that the question whether or not the procedure
prescribed has been followed and the requirement of 50 had been met, is a matter of
trial. It would neither be possible nor feasible to lay down any absolute formula in that
behalf.
40
14 | P a g e
R 47
43
44
Officer
apprising
of
his
right
under
50
of
NDPS.
15 | P a g e
R 47
45
16 | P a g e
R 47
46
17 | P a g e
R 47
conviction
under
313
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure.
Vutukuru Lakshmaiah v .State of Andhra Pradesh, 2015 (2) Crimes 349 (S.C.).
Shriya Gauba, Previous Conviction, Criminal Law Journal, March, 2015, 11.
18 | P a g e
R 47
by an officer of the prosecuting branch not below the rank of prosecuting subinspector that the identity and previous convictions of the accused persons have been
established. It is the duty of the police, in conducting the investigation, to take proper
steps to establish the identity of an accused person and to obtain and produce evidence
of previous convictions against him52. As per the said rules requisitions for particular
of previous convictions (Form 27.10) needs to be made early during the investigation,
the details of which are provided by the officer in custody of the conviction register of
the particular village.
55. It is submitted that the identity of the accused of being previously convicted is already
established in the charge-sheet under 173 submitted to the learned Court. Thus, it
cannot be contended that there was no proper evidence on record or there was noncompliance of 298 CrPC.
C. THAT THE QUESTIONS PUT TO THE ACCUSED UNDER 313 DID NOT CAUSE PREJUDICE TO
THE ACCUSED/ APPELLANT-2
56. It is submitted that no prejudice has been caused to the accused when questions
regarding previous conviction were asked by the judge. In the case53 it has been held
that the questioning of accused under 313 Cr.P.C is not an empty formality, the
essence of accusation has to be brought to the notice of the accused while examining
him under 313 Cr.P.C. The omission to put questions with regard to the charge
under 31 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 to the
accused under 313 Cr.P.C. definitely caused prejudiced to the accused.
52
53
19 | P a g e
R 47
57. The contention that the mind of the judge has been prejudiced holds no ground as the
judgment of the Special Court is an exhaustive judgment based on appreciation of
facts and law and does not suffer from any legal infirmity .The fact of previous
conviction was kept out of consideration during the application of judicial mind to
determine the culpability of the Accused/Appellant-2. Similarly has been held in
Murlidhar Yadav v State of Maharashtra54. In any case the latest position in law
appears to be that prejudice must be shown by an accused before it can be held that he
was entitled to acquittal over a defective and perfunctory statement under 313 of
Code of Criminal Procedure55. Therefore, the burden of proof lies upon Appellant-2
that he there has been failure of justice.
58. It is submitted that no objection was raised at the trial stage when question regarding
previous conviction were asked. The Apex Court has held If an objection as to the
313 statement is taken at the earliest stage, the court can make good the defect and
record an additional statement as that would be in the interest of all but if the matter
is allowed to linger on and the objections are taken belatedly it would be a difficult
situation for the prosecution as well as the accused. In the case before us, as already
indicated, the objection as to the defective 313 statements had not been raised in the
trial court. We must assume therefore that no prejudice had been felt by the
Appellants even assuming that some incriminating circumstances in the prosecution
story had been left out.56
54
20 | P a g e
R 47
PRAYER
HEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENT ADVANCED, REASONS GIVEN
AND AUTHORITIES CITED, THIS
OF
MAY BE
PLEASED TO:
TO HOLD
THAT THE TRIAL COURT HAS RIGHTLY APPRECIATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE WHERE THE
PROSECUTION HAS PROVED THE OFFENCES AGAINST THEM.
THAT THE APPELLANTS HAVE NOT BEEN FALSELY IMPLICATED IN THE CASE.
THAT THE PROCEDURE ALLEGED TO BE ADOPTED IN SEARCH AND SEIZURE STANDS THE
SCRUTINY OF LAW.
THAT THE PROCEDURE SATISFIES THE SAFEGUARDS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 50 OF THE
NDPS ACT, 1985.
THAT THE TRIAL COURT HAS TAKEN THE FACTUM OF PREVIOUS CONVICTION OF
APPELLANT-2 WITH PROPER EVIDENCE ON RECORD.
TO PASS
21 | P a g e