BIRENDRA KUMAR
Premkumar S/o Harbanslal – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER :
Birendra Kumar, J.
1. Heard the parties.
2. The sole appellant has challenged his conviction in Sessions Case No.46/2011, arising out of FIR No.212/2011 registered with Police Station Purani Aabadi, Bikaner for offences under Section 8/21 and 8/22 NDPS Act.
3. By the impugned judgment dated 29.11.2016, the learned trial judge has awarded ten years’ rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- for offence under Section 8/21 NDPS Act and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment. Five years’ rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.50,000/- has been awarded for offence under Section 8/22 NDPS Act and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months’ rigorous imprisonment.
4. Ms. Anita Gehlot, learned amicus curiae submits that there is non-compliance of the mandate of Section 52A of the NDPS Act inasmuch as neither service of the Magistrate was ensured before taking out samples from the seized contraband at the spot nor photographs were taken to ensure credibility on the part of search and seizure.
Learned counsel next contends that PW-1 Rambahadur and PW-3 Vikram Singh, who are witnesses of the search and seizure have
Bothilal Vs. Intelligence Officer Narcotics Control Bureau
Union of India Vs. Mohanlal & Anr.
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'....
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.
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.
Mandatory compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act is essential for the validity of evidence in narcotics cases.
Non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act vitiates the prosecution case, requiring the presence of a Magistrate during the seizure process.
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 provisions of the NDPS Act, specifically Section 52A, undermining the prosecution's case.
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 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, 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.