TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
Senior Intelligence Officer – Appellant
Versus
State Of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
ORDER :
(Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, J.)
The Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence has filed a complaint in F.No. DRI/HZU/ VJRU/48/ENQ- 1[INT-1]/2017 against the accused to take cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 20, 28, and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short NDPS Act, 1985). The said complaint was registered as S.C. No.109 of 2017. The said officer has filed Crl.M.P.No.1069 of 2017 under Section 52A of NDPS Act praying the Court to allow the application and permit to forward the original sample drawn in the presence of Magistrate of CRCL, Chennai, along with the test memos in duplicate. The said application was allowed by an order dated 22.03.2017 permitting the complainant to follow the procedure contemplated under sub-section (2) of Section 52A of the NDPS Act, 1985 and permitting the complainant to dispose of the property as per Sub-Section (1) of Section 52A of NDPS Act, 1985, and the date fixed to follow the procedure under sub-section (2) of Section 52A of the NDPS Act.
2. Be that as it may after examining of two witnesses, the 2nd respondent who is the accused has filed an application in Criminal M.P.
Inventory conducted under Section 52A of the NDPS Act is primary evidence, and an accused cannot compel production of seized materials if they did not participate in the inventory process.
(1) Section 52A of NDPS Act is a mandatory rule of evidence – When there is non-compliance of Section 52A of NDPS Act, where a certification of a Magistrate is lacking any inventory, photograph or li....
Mandatory compliance with NDPS Act's provisions for seizure and evidence is essential; failure leads to invalidation of convictions.
The court ruled that non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act invalidates the conviction, emphasizing the necessity of a Magistrate's presence during evidence collection.
The conviction was set aside due to non-compliance with mandatory procedures under the NDPS Act, specifically Section 52A regarding the presence of a Magistrate during sampling.
The prosecution's failure to follow mandatory procedures for search and seizure under the NDPS Act vitiated the trial, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of strict compliance with the procedural provisions of the NDPS Act, particularly Section 52A(2), (3) and (4), for seizure and s....
The conviction under the NDPS Act was quashed due to failure to comply with mandatory procedures for sample collection, emphasizing the importance of due process in narcotics cases.
Recovery of Ganja – Samples drawn in presence of Magistrate and list thereof on being certified alone would constitute primary evidence for the purposes of trial.
Recovery of contraband – Penal provisions of NDPS Act, 1985 prescribes very harsh punishment for offender and it is incumbent for prosecution side that mandatory procedural requirement to be followed....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.