BIRENDRA KUMAR
Sunil, S/o. Sh. Shankar Lal Raisikh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP – Respondent
ORDER :
(Birendra Kumar, J.) :
1. This is an appeal against judgment of conviction recorded on 02.07.2024 in Sessions Case No.45/2021, whereunder the appellant was found guilty and was sentenced for offence under Section 8/22 of NDPS Act. Rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- was awarded against the appellant and in default of payment of fine, further two years rigorous imprisonment was additionally awarded.
2. The prosecution case is that on 30.09.2020, Mr. Ram Pratap Verma, SHO Hindumalkot Police Station along with his police team was on patrolling near Aam Kotha Khakhan Road. The informant saw the appellant carrying a plastic bag on his shoulder. The appellant was intercepted and from his possession Tramadol Hydrochloride Tablets were recovered. Total weight of the tablets was 3 Kg. 900 Gms. Since the appellant had no license to carry those tablets, the appellant was arrested at the spot and FIR No.240/2020 was registered with Hindumalkot Police Station. The samples were taken out at the spot and since no independent and respectable witness was there, the police constables who were party to the raiding team were made witnesses of the search and seizure. The
Mangilal Vs. The State of Madhya pradesh reported in 2023 INSC 634
Union of India Vs. Mohanlal & Anr.
Bothilal Vs. Intelligence Officer Narcotics Control Bureau reported in AIR Online 2023 SC 339
Mandatory compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act is essential for the validity of evidence in narcotics cases, and failure to adhere to this provision creates reasonable doubt.
Compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act is mandatory for the admissibility of evidence in drug-related cases, and failure to adhere to this provision can lead to the dismissal of the prosecution'....
Non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act, which mandates the presence of a Magistrate during the sampling of seized narcotics, renders the prosecution's case invalid.
The court ruled that non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act invalidates the conviction, emphasizing the necessity of a Magistrate's presence during evidence collection.
Non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act vitiates the prosecution case, requiring the presence of a Magistrate during the seizure process.
Mandatory compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act is essential for the validity of evidence in narcotics cases.
Failure to comply with mandatory seizure and sampling procedures under the NDPS Act vitiates conviction, as primary evidence was not established.
The judgment establishes that non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act is a critical flaw that can invalidate a narcotics conviction.
The conviction was set aside due to non-compliance with mandatory procedures under the NDPS Act, specifically Section 52A regarding the presence of a Magistrate during sampling.
Mandatory compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act is essential for the validity of evidence in narcotics cases, particularly regarding the involvement of a Magistrate in the seizure process.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.