Back
MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
Sadique Ul Hoque – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Heard Ms. S.K. Nargis, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Sadique Ul Hoque, who has been detained behind the bars since 01.03.2024 (for last 157 days) in connection with Hatigaon P.S. Case No. 39/2024, under Section 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.
3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 01.03.2024, one Sri Jeewel Das, SI of Police of Hatigaon Police Station, lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Hatigaon Police Station, inter-alia, alleging that an information was received from one Atul Malakar to the effect that his tenant, namely, (1) Md. Haleef Afridi, and (2) Sadique Ul Hoque have been running illegal business of narcotics substance from his rented room situated at Puberun Path, House No. 38, Bye Lane No. 8, Hatigaon. After receiving the said information, the police team from Hatigaon Police Station proceeded to the said place and conducted the search inside the house.
4. During the search operation, 12 numbers of sealed packet wrapped with brown c
Non-compliance with mandatory procedures under the NDPS Act and 2022 Rules warrants bail, emphasizing strict adherence to statutory requirements.
Non-compliance with mandatory procedures under the NDPS Act and 2022 Rules vitiates the sample drawing process, entitling the accused to bail.
Failure to comply with mandatory procedures under the NDPS Act vitiates conviction, necessitating primary evidence for a valid trial.
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.
Possession of narcotic substances can result in conviction under NDPS despite procedural non-compliance if evidentiary strength supports prosecution's claims.
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.
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.
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
