BIRENDRA KUMAR
Surendra Kumar, S/o. Shri Mahaveer Prasad – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP – Respondent
ORDER :
(Birendra Kumar, J.) :
1. The sole appellant Surendra Kumar has challenged his conviction for the offence under Section 8/22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 by the impugned judgment dated 10.07.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No. 21/2020 (CIS No. 21/2020). The learned trial Judge has sentenced the appellant with 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment plus fine of Rs.1 Lac and in default of payment of fine, 6 months’ rigorous imprisonment has been ordered. By the same judgment, co-accused Ashok Kumar was acquitted giving benefit of doubt.
2. In brief, the prosecution case is that on 13.1.2020 at about 10:39 am, PW-3 Bishan Sahay, SHO of Goluwala Police Station, Hanumangarh alongwith other constables was on patrolling duty. While patrolling, PW-3 Bishan Sahay saw a motor-cycle rider carrying a bag consisting of white powder on the fuel tank of the TVS motorcycle. On seeing the police, the rider turned his motorcycle in the opposite direction and started fleeing on his motorcycle bearing registration number RJ 31 SP 0531, however, he was caught by the police. The appellant was the rider on the motor-cycle
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 AIR Online 2023 SC 339
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.
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.
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.
Mandatory compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act is essential for the validity of evidence in narcotics cases.
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 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.
(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....
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.