Back
ROBIN PHUKAN
Tarun Das, S/o. Late Babulal Das – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam, Represented by Public Prosecutor – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Robin Phukan, J.)
Heard Ms. B. Sharma, learned amicus curie for the appellant and Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.
2. In this appeal, under Section 383 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) the appellant, namely, Tarun Das has challenged the correctness or otherwise of the judgment and order dated 28.09.2018, passed by the learned Addl. Special Judge (NDPS), Tinsukia, in NDPS Case No. 14(T)/2016, arising out of Dhola P.S. Case No. 39/2016, under Section 20(b) of NDPS Act.
3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment and order dated 28.09.2018, the learned Addl. Special Judge (NDPS), Tinsukia, has convicted the appellant under Section 20(b) of NDPS Act, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for another six months.
4. The background facts leading to filing of the present appeal are adumbrated herein below:-
“The members of Mahila Samitee of Dhola Bazar, on 05.07.16, at 3:30 PM, acting on a tip off, about keeping of psychotropic substance in the house of accused Tarun Das situated at Bormur
Mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act regarding search and seizure must be strictly followed; failure to do so can lead to acquittal due to reasonable doubt.
Failure to comply with mandatory procedures under the NDPS Act vitiates conviction, necessitating primary evidence for a valid trial.
The conviction was quashed due to failure to comply with mandatory procedures for evidence collection under the NDPS Act, emphasizing the importance of a fair 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.
Non-compliance with mandatory procedures under the NDPS Act leads to vitiation of conviction, requiring strict adherence to evidence collection protocols.
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....
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
