BIRENDRA KUMAR
Kewal Singh S/o Sh. Bakhtavar Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Heard the parties.
2. Both the appellants faced trial in Criminal Case No.200/2016 arising out of FIR No.03/2008 registered at Baytu Police Station for offence under Section 8/15 NDPS Act. Since appellant - Kewal Singh was absconding on the date of judgment, another appellant Dinesh @ Diniya @ Lala Ram was convicted by judgment dated 26.09.2019 and was awarded with ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,00,000/- in default of payment of fine, one year simple imprisonment was ordered. Later on Kewal Singh was also apprehended and he was convicted by the impugned judgment dated 19.01.2024 and same sentence was awarded against him as well.
2. The prosecution case as disclosed in the statement of PW-10 Manish Charan is that on 15.01.2008, he was posted as Officer In-Charge of Baytu Police Station. He along with police party had intercepted a scorpio vehicle bearing Registration No. RJ-14-U-4559, of which Mr. Mool Singh was driver (Mool Singh is reported dead). Appellant Kewal Singh was sitting beside the driver and appellant Dinesh was seen fleeing from the place of interception of the vehicle. From the said vehicle, seven bags of doda post were recovered. They had no
Union of India Vs. Mohanlal & Anr.
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 AIROnline 2023 SC 339
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.
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 vitiates the prosecution case, requiring the presence of a Magistrate during the seizure process.
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 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 drug cases, and its violation can lead to the dismissal of charges.
The conviction was overturned due to failure to comply with mandatory procedures under the NDPS Act, specifically Section 52A regarding sample collection.
The conviction under the NDPS Act was quashed due to failure to comply with mandatory procedures for sample collection, emphasizing the importance of due process in narcotics cases.
Mandatory compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act is essential for the validity of evidence in narcotics cases.
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.