#conviction

The Gauhati High Court set aside NDPS convictions because the trial court did not make an inventory of seized narcotics nor have the samples sealed before a magistrate as required by Section 52A, making the evidence inadmissible. The decision mandates strict compliance with the inventory-and-sealing rule for all NDPS prosecutions, safeguarding accused where procedural lapses occur.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court annulled the conviction of a public servant under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act because the prosecution lacked a valid sanction, rendering the proceedings non-est. The ruling reinforces that any PC-Act charge against a public servant must be preceded by a proper sanction, or the case is liable to be dismissed. This decision benefits officials facing similar charges where sanction was not duly obtained.

The Delhi High Court affirmed the teacher’s conviction, ruling that a trustworthy child’s statement, even without corroborative evidence, meets the evidentiary threshold under the POCSO Act. It further held that the statutory presumption of guilt in Section 29 remains valid when the child’s testimony is reliable, strengthening the evidentiary position of minor victims in future cases.

Chhattisgarh High Court rules that hostile seizure witnesses alone cannot invalidate an NDPS conviction if the Investigating Officer's testimony is reliable and supported by documentary evidence. The court emphasizes that substantial compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act suffices when the overall evidence inspires confidence, reinforcing the primacy of credible investigation over procedural lapses by independent witnesses.