Back
ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Sunita W/o Shri Jang Bahadur – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through PP – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The appellant herein has been convicted for offence under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act vide judgment dated 22.03.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Jaipur Metro-I in Sessions Case (NDPS Case) No.14/2022 and sentenced to undergo ten years’ RI with fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was sentenced to one year’s additional rigorous imprisonment.
2. With the consent of learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor, instead of suspension of sentence application, the instant appeal is heard finally. Accordingly, the suspension of sentence application is disposed of.
3. The appellant herein has preferred the instant criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. challenging her conviction and sentence, as mentioned above.
4. Brief facts of the case are that on 21.04.2021, Shri Devendra Kumar, Inspector Police Station Sanjay Circle lodged a report inter alia alleging that in the night of 20.04.2021, he along with other police staff were on patrolling duty. At 11:37 PM, he along with other police staff left the police station. At about 3:15 AM, when they reached in front of police line, Station Road, they saw two w
The conviction was quashed due to failure to comply with mandatory procedures for evidence collection under the NDPS Act, emphasizing the importance of a fair trial.
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.
Strict compliance with the statutory provisions of the NDPS Act, particularly in cases involving the seizure and disposal of contraband, is crucial to establish the integrity of the evidence and the ....
Failure to comply with mandatory procedures under the NDPS Act vitiates conviction, necessitating primary evidence for a valid trial.
The conviction was set aside due to non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, specifically Section 52A, undermining the prosecution's case.
Possession of narcotic substances can result in conviction under NDPS despite procedural non-compliance if evidentiary strength supports prosecution's claims.
Recovery of Ganja – Samples drawn in presence of Magistrate and list thereof on being certified alone would constitute primary evidence for the purposes of 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
