Back
DIPANKAR DATTA, MANMOHAN
Surepally Srinivas – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh (Now State of Telangana) – Respondent
JUDGMENT
DIPANKAR DATTA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These three criminal appeals are directed against a common judgment and order dated 27th June, 2024 [impugned order], passed by a learned Judge of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad disposing of a criminal appeal [Criminal Appeal No.943 of 2012] and dismissing two other criminal appeals [Criminal Appeal Nos. 972 and 999 of 2012]. Such appeals had been carried to the High Court from the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 17th September, 2012 in SC No. 37 of 2010, recorded by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad. The appellants before the High Court, after being jointly tried, were convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [NDPS Act] and all of them, except the appellant Surepally Srinivas [A-1], were sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment plus fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each whereas A-1 was sentenced to 20 years rigorous imprisonment plus fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
3. By the impugned order of disposal of a criminal appeal, the High Court acquitted two of the appellants (A2 and A8) and r
Seizure of Ganja – What is required is substantial compliance of statutory provisions and procedure laid down in such Standing Order No.1/89.
(1) Disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances – Even in cases where there is non-compliance with procedural requirements of Section 52A, it does not necessarily vitiate trial or w....
The appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal due to the prosecution's failure to comply with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, particularly Section 52A regarding the disposal of seized ....
Failure to comply with mandatory seizure and sampling procedures under the NDPS Act vitiates conviction, as primary evidence was not established.
Non-compliance with the mandatory sampling and inventory procedures for seized contraband creates a rebuttable presumption of tampering. Once foundational facts of such lapses are proven, the prosecu....
Compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act is unnecessary when contraband is recovered from a bag in possession, not directly from a person.
The court upheld the conviction under the NDPS Act, ruling that non-compliance with Section 52A did not invalidate the evidence or conviction.
Non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements under Section 52A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act can lead to acquittal due to reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
