BIRENDRA KUMAR
Vicky @ Vikramjeet Singh S/o Shri Hajur Singh Ramgharia – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through PP – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Birendra Kumar, J.
1. The sole appellant Vicky @ Vikramjeet Singh has challenged his conviction for the offence under Section 8/22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 by the impugned judgment dated 12.3.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No.03/2019 (CIS No.03/2019). The learned trial Judge has sentenced the appellant with 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment plus fine of Rs.1 Lac, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 02 years’ simple imprisonment has been ordered.
2. In brief, the prosecution case is that on 03.8.2018 at about 3:58 pm PW-5 Kuldeep Valia, SHO of Sadar Police Station, Sri Gangangar alongwith other Constables was on patrolling duty. The local CO Mr. Tulsi Das telephonically informed to PW-5 that some suspicious motor-cycle is coming on the road. The police intercepted motor-cycle bearing Regn. No.RJ-13SX-9078. The rider started fleeing dropping the motor-cycle on the road, however, he was caught by the police. The appellant was the rider on the motor-cycle.
3. From the bag hanging with the handle of motor-cycle Nrx Tramadol Hydrocholoride Tablets were found. The total weight of Tablet
Bothilal Vs. Intelligence Officer Narcotics Control Bureau AIROnline 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 can lead to the dismissal of charges.
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.
The court ruled that non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act invalidates the evidence, leading to the overturning of the conviction.
The conviction was set aside due to non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, specifically Section 52A, undermining the prosecution's case.
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.
Mandatory compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act is essential for the validity of evidence in narcotics cases.
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.
(1) Section 52A of NDPS Act is a mandatory rule of evidence – When there is non-compliance of Section 52A of NDPS Act, where a certification of a Magistrate is lacking any inventory, photograph or li....
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'....
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.