Back
RAMESH SINHA, RAVINDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL
Bhupendra Singh @ Rana – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
JUDGMENT (CAV)
Ramesh Sinha, C.J.—Since the aforesaid two criminal appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment dated 18.04.2022 passed by the Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), Raipur in Special Criminal Case No.08/18, they were clubbed & heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Appellant-Bhupendra Singh @ Rana has preferred Criminal Appeal No.718/2022 under Section 374(2) of the CrPC questioning the impugned judgment dated 18.04.2022 passed by the Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), Raipur in Special Criminal Case No.08/18, by which he has been convicted for offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called as ‘NDPS Act’) and sentenced him undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and fine of Rs.2,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years.
3. Appellant-Hardeep Singh @ Sandeep has preferred Criminal Appeal No.1310/2022 under Section 374(2) of the CrPC questioning the impugned judgment dated 18.04.2022 passed by the Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), Raipur in Special Criminal Case No.08/18, by which he has been convicted for offence under Sectio
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 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....
Failure to comply with mandatory procedures under the NDPS Act vitiates conviction, necessitating primary evidence for a valid trial.
Mandatory compliance with NDPS Act's provisions for seizure and evidence is essential; failure leads to invalidation of convictions.
Possession of narcotic substances can result in conviction under NDPS despite procedural non-compliance if evidentiary strength supports prosecution's claims.
The prosecution must prove possession of narcotics beyond reasonable doubt, and procedural lapses do not automatically invalidate a conviction if credible evidence supports the case.
Strict adherence to procedural requirements in the NDPS Act is essential for securing convictions; failure to follow these mandates can lead to acquittal.
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.
Prosecution's failure to comply with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act led to the acquittal of the appellants due to insufficient evidence.
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
