Back
ARVIND SINGH CHANDEL
Lalit @ Deepak Patel, S/o Ramkrishna Patel – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the accused against judgment dated 31.1.2015 passed by the Special Judge under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (henceforth ‘the NDPS Act’), Jagdalpur in Special Case No.7 of 2014, whereby the accused/Appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:
Conviction Sentence
Under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rupees One Lakh, in default of payment thereof, additional rigorous imprisonment for 2 years
2. Case of the prosecution is that on 28.7.2014 Sub-Inspector of Police Station Nagarnar, District Bastar, namely, Vimal Vatti (PW10) received information from an informant that one person keeping Ganja in Maruti 800 Car bearing registration No.CG 04 B 2472 was coming from Bajawand to Jagdalpur. He prepared Mukhbir Suchana Panchnama (Ex.P2). In compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act the information was forwarded to the higher officers vide Ex.P3. On completion of other formalities, he reached the spot along with other staff members. The Maruti 800 Car was stopped. The said car was being driven by the Appellant
The court upheld the conviction under section 20 (b) (ii) (c) of the Act of 1985 despite discrepancies in evidence and compliance with standing orders.
Non-compliance with procedural requirements under the NDPS Act, specifically Section 52A, can lead to the exclusion of seized contraband as valid evidence in trial.
Non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act, requiring samples to be drawn and certified by a Magistrate, vitiates the trial as it fails to produce primary evidence.
Strict adherence to procedural requirements in the NDPS Act is essential for securing convictions; failure to follow these mandates can lead to acquittal.
Non-compliance with the sampling procedure may affect the prosecution's case, but the final determination of the sampling's validity should be made during the trial.
Prosecution must adhere to strict evidential procedures in NDPS Act cases; failure undermines the conviction. In this case, inconsistencies in evidence and chain of custody led to acquittal.
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
