1. Conviction set aside for violating mandatory procedure under Sections 42(2) and 50 NDPS Act, 1985. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2014 Supreme(SC) 1225
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.S. Chauhan, A.K. Sikri, JJ.
I.O. Narcotics Control Bureau and Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Mohd. Sharif - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1211 of 2008
Decided On : 21-05-2014
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :R.K. Verma and Sushma Suri, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Tara Chandra Sharma, Advocate (N.P.).
For the Appellant :R.K. Verma and Sushma Suri, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Tara Chandra Sharma, Advocate (N.P.).
Violation of the mandatory procedure contained in Section 50 of the NDPS Act led to the setting aside of the appellant's conviction.
Headnote:
NDPS Act - Violation of Section 42 (2) and Section 50 - The High Court set aside the appellant's conviction due to the violation of Section 42 (2) and Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, stating that there was a clear infraction of the mandatory procedure contained in Section 50 of the NDPS Act.
Fact of the Case:
The High Court set aside the appellant's conviction due to the violation of Section 42 (2) and Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, stating that there was a clear infraction of the mandatory procedure contained in Section 50 of the NDPS Act.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court's decision to set aside the appellant's conviction was upheld by the Supreme Court, citing a violation of the mandatory procedure contained in Section 50 of the NDPS Act.
Issues: Violation of Section 42 (2) and Section 50 of the NDPS Act
Ratio Decidendi: The violation of the mandatory procedure contained in Section 50 of the NDPS Act led to the High Court's decision to set aside the appellant's conviction, which was upheld by the Supreme Court.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision to set aside the appellant's conviction.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant contested High Court finding of infraction of mandatory procedure under Section 50 NDPS Act as basis to set aside conviction. (Para 2 )
3. Appeal dismissed — High Court correctly found mandatory procedure under Section 50 NDPS Act was violated. (Para 2 )
4. What is the effect of violating the mandatory procedure under Section 50 of the NDPS Act on a criminal conviction?
The court upheld the High Court's finding that violation of mandatory procedure under Section 50 of the NDPS Act invalidates the conviction, and the appeal is without merit. (Para 2 )
ORDER :
B.S. Chauhan, J.
The High Court has set aside the conviction of the appellant awarded by the trial court primarily on the ground that there was violation of Section 42 (2) as well as Section 50 of the Narcotics Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).
2. After going through the impugned judgment of the High Court in detail, we find that on the facts of this case, the High Court has rightly arrived at a conclusion that there was infraction of the mandatory procedure contained in Section 50 of the NDPS Act. We thus do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
