Back
MANISH CHOUDHURY, MRIDUL KALITA
Binod Yadav, S/o Sri Ram Krishna Yadav – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
[M. Choudhury, J]
A. The Assail :-
1. Both these two criminal appeals, preferred under Section 374[2], Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [‘the Code’ or ‘CrPC’, for short] read with Section 36B of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [‘the NDPS Act’, for short] are directed against a Judgment and Order dated 03.10.2016 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge [FTC] No. 3, Kamrup [Metro], Guwahati [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Special Court’, for short] in NDPS Case no. 24 of 2015, which arose out of Customs Case no. 06/CL/NARC/AS/GAU/2014-15 dated 05.12.2014. The criminal appeal, numbered as Criminal Appeal no. 67 of 2019 is preferred by the accused-appellant, Binod Yadav [hereinafter also referred to as ‘A-1’, at places, for easy reference] whereas the other criminal appeal, numbered as Criminal Appeal no. 283 of 2017 is preferred by the accused-appellant, Avneesh Kumar Rajput [hereinafter also referred to as ‘A-2’, at places, for easy reference].
B. The verdict of the Special Court :-
2. By the Judgment and Order dated 03.10.2016, both the accused-appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 20[b][ii][C] of the NDPS Act, 1985 [‘the
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.
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.
Possession of narcotic substances can result in conviction under NDPS despite procedural non-compliance if evidentiary strength supports prosecution's claims.
Failure to comply with mandatory sampling procedures under Section 52A of the NDPS Act invalidates the prosecution's case, leading to acquittal.
The court reaffirmed that non-compliance with procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act, particularly Section 52A, does not automatically entitle an accused to bail; the court must still find reasonab....
Section 52A deals with disposal of seized drugs and psychotropic substances.
Failure to comply with mandatory procedures under the NDPS Act vitiates conviction, necessitating primary evidence for a valid trial.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act in the seizure and handling of contraband substances, and the requirement for th....
Mandatory compliance with NDPS Act's provisions for seizure and evidence is essential; failure leads to invalidation of convictions.
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
