Back
MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
Manirut Jaman @ Moni – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam – Respondent
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)
Heard Mr. N.N.B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam.
2. This appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the appellant, Md. Manirut Jaman @ Moni, impugning the judgment dated 27.07.2023 and order dated 02.08.2023, passed by the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Morigaon, Assam, in NDPS Case No. 71/2021, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10(ten) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for 1(one) year.
3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant criminal appeal, in brief, are as follows:
i. that on 28.09.2021, one Sri Mridul Hazarika, SI of Police had lodged an FIR before the Officer-In-Charge of Moirabari Police Station, inter alia alleging that on that day, at about 2:30 AM, he received an information through reliable sources that Md. Manirut Jaman @ Moni, who was also required in connection with Moira
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....
Non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements under the NDPS Act, particularly Section 52A, undermines the prosecution's case and warrants acquittal.
Mandatory compliance with NDPS Act's provisions for seizure and evidence is essential; failure leads to invalidation of convictions.
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.
The conviction was overturned due to failure to comply with mandatory procedures under the NDPS Act, specifically Section 52A regarding sample collection.
Procedural lapses in evidence collection under the NDPS Act, particularly failure to comply with Section 52A, render prosecution's case insufficient for conviction.
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
