Back
CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
Cherukupalli Naresh Reddy – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT (COMMON)
These three criminal appeals arise out of the judgment, dated 20.12.2017, passed in NDPS Sessions Case No.138 of 2016 on the file of the learned Special Sessions Judge for trial of the cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985-cum-I Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari District at Rajamahendravaram, whereby the appellants, who are A-1, A-3 and A-4 in the said case, were found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) r/w. Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (for short, “the Act”) and were convicted for the said offence and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1.00 Lakh each and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months each for the aforesaid offence.
2. As these three appeals arise out of the same judgment of conviction, the three appeals were heard together and they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
3. Facts of the prosecution case may briefly be stated as follows:—
(a) On 03.01.2016, PW.4 the Sub-Inspector of Police, Jaggampeta Police Station, received r
Search of accused – When there are several accused and when a personal search is sought to be made, they must individually be informed of their right to be searched before Magistrate or a Gazetted Of....
Possession of narcotics requires no personal search compliance under Section 50 when found during public checks; evidence established conscious possession leads to conviction under the NDPS Act.
The recovery from the accused's possession was valid, the testimonies of official witnesses were credible, and non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act did not affect the recovery from the accu....
The mandatory requirements under Section 50 of the NDPS Act must be strictly followed to ensure an individual's rights during searches; failure to comply renders any recovery and subsequent convictio....
Strict compliance with procedural requirements under the NDPS Act is essential for admissibility of evidence; minor discrepancies do not invalidate a conviction when substantial compliance is demonst....
The court emphasized that compliance of Sec. 50 of the NDPS Act was not necessary as there was no personal search of the accused, and the accused's conscious possession of Ganja led to the presumptio....
Non-compliance with the procedural requirements under Section 50 of NDPS Act is not applicable when contraband is recovered from a bag rather than a personal search.
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
