Back
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Arvind Kumar Verma
Bharat Jagat S/o Indro Jagat – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Amanaka Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh – Respondent
Order :
(Arvind Kumar Verma, J.)
1. Challenge in this criminal appeal is to impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 22/12/2023 passed by learned Special Judge, (NDPS Act), Raipur, District Raipur (CG) in Special Criminal Case No.19/2023, whereby the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as under:
| Conviction | Sentence | |
| Under Section 22-C of NDPS Act. | Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years & fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine 06 months additional RI. |
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 13/11/2022 on the basis of secret information the police of police station Amanaka, Raipur conducted a raid and recovered 2832 capsules (48 strips) of Spasmo Proxyvon Plus having Tramadol Drugs from the illegal possession of the appellant. Thereafter, the crime No.426/2022 was registered against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 22-C of NDPS Act and after completing necessary investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the concerned Court below.
3. In order to prove guilt of appellant, prosecution examined total 09 witnesses and their statements were recorded. Statement of appellant (accused) was recorded under Section 313 CrPC in which he pl
Failure to comply with mandatory seizure and sampling procedures under the NDPS Act vitiates conviction, as primary evidence was not established.
Failure to comply with mandatory procedures under the NDPS Act vitiates conviction, necessitating primary evidence for a valid trial.
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.
Mandatory compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act is essential for the validity of evidence in narcotics cases, and failure to adhere to this provision creates reasonable doubt.
Compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act is mandatory for the admissibility of evidence in drug-related cases, and failure to adhere to this provision can lead to the dismissal of the prosecution'....
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....
Non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act, which mandates the presence of a Magistrate during the sampling of seized narcotics, renders the prosecution's case invalid.
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.
Mandatory compliance with NDPS Act's provisions for seizure and evidence is essential; failure leads to invalidation of convictions.
The conviction was overturned due to failure to comply with mandatory procedures under the NDPS Act, specifically Section 52A regarding sample collection.
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
