The prosecution claimed that the appellant was found in possession of various narcotics, including Phenergan, Lupigesic, Diazepam IP, and Buprenorphine IP following a body search conducted in 2006.
The accused-appellant, however, argued that the search was conducted illegally and in violation of Section 50 (conditions under which search of persons shall be conducted) of the NDPS Act.
Notably, the body search is said to have been conducted after obtaining consent from the appellant through a communication written in English. The appellant claimed that he only knew Tamil, while the prosecution claimed that the appellant had responded in English.
The appellant, however, highlighted that the alleged letter of consent was not produced in the evidence before the trial court.
The appellant also contended that the sessions court was wrong to opine that compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act was not necessary when the seizure was from a handbag rather than the body.
He argued that the police testimony in the case was unreliable and urged the High Court to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Source: Barandbench
