Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
JOHNSON JOHN
Benny Sebastian @ Benny, S/o.Baby – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
JOHNSON JOHN, J.
The appellant is the accused in S.C. No. 573 of 2011 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I), Ernakulam and he is challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on him for the offence under Section 22 (b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act’ for short) as per the impugned judgment dated 21.04.2012.
2. As per the prosecution case, the accused was found in possession of 3 ampules of diazepam of 2 ml. each and 9 other ampules without any labels on search of his person by PW1, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Harbour Police Station, Kochi on 14.09.2011 at 11.30 a.m. It is stated that while PW1 and party were patrolling in the area, they saw the accused in a suspicious circumstance. The accused was arrested at the spot and after effecting recovery, crime was registered by PW1 and thereafter PW6, the then Circle Inspector, conducted the investigation and filed the final report.
3. When the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge, PWs 1 to 6 were examined and Exhibits P1 to P10 and MOs 1 to 4 were marked from the side of the prosecution. No evidence adduced from the side of the accused.
4. After hearing both side
Procedural safeguards under Section 50 of the NDPS Act must be strictly complied with; failure to do so results in inadmissibility of evidence and potential acquittal.
It is an archaic notion that actions of police officer should be approached with initial distrust. It is time now to start placing at least initial trust on actions and documents made by police. At a....
Mandatory compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act is essential for lawful searches; failure to do so renders convictions unsustainable.
Non-compliance with Section 50 NDPS Act for personal search renders contraband recovery suspicious and vitiates conviction based thereon, as safeguards are mandatory.
Strict compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act is mandatory, and failure to comply vitiates the seizure and consequential conviction.
The mandatory requirement under Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act to inform a suspect of their right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate is crucial for ensuring the fairne....
Non-compliance with Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act invalidates the prosecution's case, requiring transparent searches to protect the rights of the accused.
Strict compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act is required for the search and recovery of narcotic substances, and failure to comply can lead to the invalidation of the seizure.
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
