Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
State Of NCT Delhi – Appellant
Versus
Chander Kala W/o Sh. Padam Singh – Respondent
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 r
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
