Bore Gowda Vs. State of Karnataka - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- [k.t. thomas and; a.p. misra, jj.] narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances act, 1985 — s. 20(b) r/w s. 29 - in this case there was no evidence that anybody had seen that any one of the accused was dealing with narcotic drugs. there is also no evidence to show that any one of them had admitted either through a confession or otherwise of any incriminating role. nor is there evidence that the accused persons, who were found sitting in the room, had possession of the room, actual or constructive. it is the prosecution case that the said room was in the possession of one n. but that person is not an accused in this case. he was not examined as a prosecution witness to disclose as to how the accused persons happened to be in the room. none of the neighbours supported the prosecution case that any one of the accused had a connection with the article in question. thus the only modicum of evidence that was available against the accused-appellants was that they were present in the room which was in the possession of one n and that the said room contained a gunny bag with the narcotic substance “charas”. it is not possible to sustain the conviction of the offence under section 20(b) read with section 29 of the act as for any one of the appellants on the strength of the aforesaid evidence. it is too insufficient to bring home the guilt of the appellants. the high court erred in placing the burden on the appellants to explain as to how they were present in the room. there is no statutory provision for drawing any presumption that a person who was present at any particular place shall be presumed to be in possession of the narcotic or psychotropic substance. no presumption under law can be drawn even under section 114 of the evidence act merely because these persons were present when pw 7 went there. either those persons would have been casually present in the room or at least one of them would have been unaware of what was going on inside the room. it has not been told who among the many accused that one possible innocent person could have been. in the light of the aforesaid imponderables it is difficult to sustain the conviction as against any one of the appellants.   - considering the case, benevolent provisions of the probation of offenders act were extended to the appellant and was released on executing a bond before trial court for keeping peace and good behavior for 3 years.the text below is only a summarized version of the order pronouncedthe appellant was convicted for misappropriating the funds of the co-operative society being its secretary. however such irregularities took place in 1981-82 and the amount misappropriated was minor and the same was returned at that time only along with the interest. considering the case, benevolent provisions of the probation of offenders act were extended to the appellant and was released on executing a bond before trial court for keeping peace and good behavior for 3 years.

Judgment:
The Text below is only a summarized version of the order pronounced

The appellant was convicted for misappropriating the funds of the co-operative society being its secretary. However such irregularities took place in 1981-82 and the amount misappropriated was minor and the same was returned at that time only along with the interest. Considering the case, benevolent provisions of the Probation of offenders Act were extended to the appellant and was released on executing a bond before Trial Court for keeping peace and good behavior for 3 years.