Back
BIRENDRA KUMAR
Hariram Bishnoi S/o Shri Mohanram Bishnoi – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India, Through NCB, Regional Unit Jodhpur – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Birendra Kumar, J.
1. The sole appellant Hariram Bishnoi has challenged his conviction by judgment dated 30.7.2024 passed in Sessions Case No. 8/2023 arising out of Narcotics Control Bureau Case No. 269/2014. The learned trial Judge has found the appellant guilty for offence under Section 8(c) read with Section 18 of NDPS Act and has awarded 6 years rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.50,000/-. In default of payment of fine 1 month rigorous imprisonment has been ordered.
2. The prosecution case is that PW.4 Hardevaram got reliable information through informer that a person is carrying opium and he might be apprehended near Banad Tiraha. PW.4 reported the matter to the Senior Officer PW.1 Bishanlal Nayak. Bishanlal Lal Nayak constituted a team headed by PW.4. On 9.2.2012 at about 15:00 hours, the team reached near Banad Tiraha and noticed that a man carrying a handbag was talking with the truck driver near Maharaja Hotel, on suspicion the man was intercepted and he disclosed his name as the appellant. From possession of the appellant 2 kg of opium was seized. There was no explanation with the appellant for carrying the opium, therefore, appellant was taken into custod
Mandatory compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act is essential for the validity of evidence in narcotics cases.
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 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.
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'....
The judgment establishes that non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act is a critical flaw that can invalidate a narcotics conviction.
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.
(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....
Strict compliance with statutory provisions under the NDPS Act is essential for upholding convictions; failure to produce seized contraband and lack of proper inventory preparation undermines the pro....
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
