Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
State Of NCT Delhi - Appellant
Vs.
Chander Kala W/o Sh. Padam Singh - Respondent
CRL.L.P. 47 Of 2021
Decided On : 28-08-20225
JUDGMENT :
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. An Application under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner/State for grant of Leave to Appeal against judgement dated 25.10.2019 of Learned Special Judge, NDPS Act, Delhi acquitting the Respondent Chander Kala, for the offence under Section 21(c) of Narcotic Drugs Psychotropic Substance Act.
2. It is stated that there is ample material on record to show that the acquittal of the accused is liable to be set aside.
3. Submissions heard
4. For the reasons stated in the Petition, the Leave to Appeal is allowed and is accordingly disposed of.
CRL.A.________/2025 (To be numbered by the Registry)
5. Criminal Appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the State challenging the Judgment dated 25.10.2019 passed by Special Judge, NDPS Act whereby the accused was acquitted of the charges under Section 21(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter “NDPS Act”) in FIR No. 200/2016, P.S. Crime Branch, Delhi.
6. Briefly stated, on 16.12.2016 on receiving secret information which was reduced to writing by ASI Om Prakash and put to the senior in compliance of the provisions of Section 42 of the Act, a raiding party headed by ASI Om Prakash was constituted which apprehended the Respondent from near the Ganda Nala under the flyover, Wazirabad, Delhi and recovered 1Kg of heroin from his possession, which was seized after due compliance of the mandatory provisions of law.
7. FIR No.200/2016 was registered. On completion of the investigations, Chargesheet was filed in the Court. Charge under Section 21(c) of NDPS Act was framed on 08.05.2017 to which the Respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
8. The Prosecution examined ten witnesses in all.
9. PW6 Inspector Vijender Singh deposed that on 1612.2016 at about 10:45 A.M ASI Om Prakash produced one secret informer who gave information about the Respondent carrying smack from Bareilly for supply in Delhi. The Raiding Team was prepared and he along with PW9/ASI Om Prakash and PW10/HC Yogender conducted the raid and apprehended the Respondent along with the smack.
10. PW1 W/Const. Janita Meena was member of the Raiding Party, which apprehended the Accused. The Personal Search was conducted by ASI Om Prakash on the spot. Carbon Copy of the Notice given to the Respondent is Ex.PW1/A. The Reply of the respondent on the Caron Copy is Ex.PW1/B. The Seizure Memo is Ex.PW1/C.
11. PW2/Inspector Vivek Pathak the then SHO had deposed about the production of the case property before him in compliance of Section 55 of the Act and its deposit thereof in the Malkhana, after affixation of the seal thereon. The photocopy of the entry in the Malkhana Register is Mark A1. He also recorded DD No.10 Ex.PW2/A at about 04:30 P.M. He identified the parcels Mark B and C along with one more parcel bearing Mark A, produced by HC Yogender in his office and identified the seals.
12. PW3/Sanjeev Kumar Dahiya, ACP Narcotics and Crime Prevention, deposed that on 16.12.2016 on the compliance of Section 42 of the Act, DD No.10 dated 16.12.2016 Ex.PW3/A was received in the office, which was put before him and entry was made in Diary Register vide entry No.3045, copy of which is Ex.PW3/B. The Report under Section 57 NDPS Act regarding recovery of 1 Kg of heroin was prepared by ASI Om Prakash and forwarded by the Inspector, which is Ex.PW3/C and was received in his office.
13. PW5/ASI Geeta is the Duty Officer who registered the FIR.
14. PW4/HC Sandeep Kumar is the formal witness who collected the sealed parcel from P.S. Crime Branch, Malviya Nagar along with FSL Form and other documents on 19.12.2016 and deposited with the FSL, Rohini.
15. PW7/ASI Jag Narain MHC(M) has produced the Register No.19 of the Malkhana Ex.PW7/B.
16. PW8/SI Jai Prakash is the Investigating Officer, who had conducted the investigation in the present case.
17. The statement of the Respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein she denied the recovery of any con
AI
Compliance with procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act is essential; failure results in reasonable doubt about the prosecution's case, warranting acquittal.
The mandatory requirements under Section 50 of the NDPS Act must be strictly followed to ensure an individual's rights during searches; failure to comply renders any recovery and subsequent convictio....
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 mandatory nature of Section 50 of the NDPS Act and the importance of safeguarding the accused's rights were established in the judgment.
Recovery of narcotics – Seizures are made in all kinds of circumstances and they cannot be disbelieved merely on the basis that no independent witness was present.
Compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act is mandatory, and failure to adhere to procedural safeguards undermines convictions, particularly in cases with no independent corroboration.
The prosecution established the appellant's conscious possession of narcotics, validating the conviction despite procedural non-compliance, as substantial evidence supported the case.
The prosecution's failure to follow mandatory procedures for search and seizure under the NDPS Act vitiated the trial, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Stringent punishment has been provided for offences punishable under NDPS Act.
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
