Back
BIRENDRA KUMAR
Hanuman Ram S/o Surja Ram – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The appellants and three others faced trial in Sessions Case No.234/2014 (31/2011). The aforesaid trial arises out of FIR No.599/2010 registered with Nimbahera Police Station vide Exhibit-25. On 02.8.2022 judgment of conviction was passed against appellant Basanti Lal, Prakash Dhakad, whereas by the same judgment co-accused Madan Lal, Jagdish and Pappu Bishnoi were acquitted. Since appellant Hanuman Ram was absconding at the time of judgment dated 02.8.2022 and was apprehended later on, judgment of conviction was recorded against him on 17.02.2024, which are under challenge herein. Appellants were convicted for offence under Sections 8/15(c) & 8/25 of NDPS Act and ten years’ rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- was awarded for both the offences separately and in default of payment of fine additional one year’s rigorous imprisonment was ordered.
2. Prosecution case as disclosed in the FIR is that on 06.10.2010 in early morning the informant got information from the Police Informer that contrabands are being carried through the referred route. At about 5:00 am near Bhagwanpura Road first a suspicious motor-cycle was stopped and from that motor-cycle app
Mandatory compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act is essential for the validity of evidence in drug cases, and its violation can lead to the dismissal of charges.
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.
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.
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 vitiates the prosecution case, requiring the presence of a Magistrate during the seizure process.
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.
Failure to comply with mandatory procedures under the NDPS Act vitiates conviction, necessitating primary evidence for a valid trial.
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
