Back
M. M. SUNDRESH, N. KOTISWAR SINGH
Elvish Yadav @ Siddharth – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
What is the proper cognizance procedure under Section 55 of The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, and can cognizance be taken on the basis of a chargesheet or must it be based on a statutory complaint by an authorised officer? What is the status of invoking the NDPS Act when the recovered substance (snake venom/antibodies) is not listed as a psychotropic substance in the Schedule, and can such invocation sustain? What are the consequences when cognizance is taken without strict adherence to the procedural requirements of a special statute, and can such proceedings be quashed ab initio?
Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 12.05.2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 14438/2025. The appellant is challenging the criminal proceedings emanating out of FIR No. 461/2023 dated 03.11.2023, registered at P.S. Noida Sector - 49, District - Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh and Chargesheet No. 1/2024 dated 05.04.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 120 -B, 284 and 289 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the IPC ’) along with Sections 9 , 39, 48-A, 49, 50 and 51 of The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (for short ‘the 1972 Act’) and Sections 8 , 22, 29, 30 and 32 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘the NDPS Act’).
3. There are two seminal issues, amongst other issues, which have arisen before us for determination in the present appeal. The first issue pertains to cognizance of an offence under Section 55 of the 1972 Act taken on the basis of a chargesheet. The second issue pertains to the scope and applicability of Section 2 (xxiii) of the NDPS Act.
4. We have heard the arguments made at length by Ms. Mu
(1) Psychotropic Substance – Recovery of anti-bodies of snake venom from accused will not fall within purview of a psychotropic substance and does not warrant invocation of provisions of NDPS Act.(2)....
sub-section (2) of section 55 is also very relevant to be mentioned here, it says that for the purposes of section 156 of Cr P.C, the area in regard to which an Inspector of Excise or Sub-Inspector o....
Unauthorised sale of drugs and violation of license conditions – Section 468 of Cr.P.C. is not applicable.
The court ruled that only the Appropriate Authority or authorized officers can investigate and file complaints under the PC&PNDT Act, prohibiting police involvement in such cases.
The court confirmed that prima facie evidence is sufficient to justify custodial interrogation in drug offence cases, highlighting the serious nature of charges under the NDPS Act.
The court upheld that cognizance is taken of the offence rather than the offender, enabling supplementary complaints without violating prior hearing mandates, confirming no sanction under Section 197....
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
