Back
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, SUSHIL KUKREJA
State of Himachal Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Soni – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Sushil Kukreja, J.—The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant- State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) against the judgment of acquittal dated 30.04.2013 passed by the learned Special Judge, Chamba, District Chamba, HP, in Sessions Trial No.49/12, whereby the accused persons (respondents herein) were acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the ‘NDPS Act’).
2. Facts of the case, in brief, giving rise to instant appeal as per the prosecution story, are that on 08.05.2012, a police party headed by HC Devanand, while on patrolling duty towards Kapahdi Mod- Madhuwad- Seri-Kalhel, noticed two persons at around 2:40 AM, near Zero Point Jassourgarh, who were sitting on the left side of the high way and on seeing police, they tried to run away, but both of them were apprehended by the police. On suspicion, HC Devanand inquired their credentials, upon which, one of them disclosed his name as Soni (accused/respondent No.1 herein) and another as Ajay Kumar (accused/ respondent No.2 herein). As the aforesaid place was secluded and there was no habitation in the nearby,
(1) Appeal against acquittal – If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of evidence on record, Appellate Court should not disturb finding of acquittal recorded by trial Court.(2) Seizure of ....
The appellate court cannot overturn an acquittal unless the trial court's view is unreasonable; failure to comply with mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act renders evidence inadmissible....
Non-compliance with mandatory provisions of Sections 42(2) and 50 of the NDPS Act vitiates the search and recovery, leading to acquittal.
Seizure of Charas – Legal right provided to accused under Section 50 of NDPS Act is indefeasible.
The court upheld the trial court's acquittal of the accused due to significant procedural violations and lack of evidence connecting them to the alleged drug possession.
The court emphasized strict compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, holding that failure to inform the accused of his right to a personal search before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate invalidate....
The appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and the trial court's findings unless compelling reasons exist to overturn an acquittal.
Non-compliance with Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act is fatal to the prosecution case, and the powers of the appellate court in appeals against acquittal should be exercised with caution.
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
