Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J, Sushil Kukreja
State of Himachal Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Sher Singh – Respondent
A similar judgment would be one that emphasizes the mandatory nature of compliance with Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act during search and seizure operations. The court would likely highlight that failure to adhere to these statutory provisions renders the evidence inadmissible and can lead to the acquittal of the accused. The judgment would also underscore the importance of informing the suspect of their rights under Section 50 and properly recording information under Section 42, with total non-compliance being impermissible and fatal to the prosecution’s case (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of the factual background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments regarding compliance with the ndps act. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. discussion on section 42 compliance. (Para 16 , 18) |
| 4. clarification and implications of section 50. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. conclusion dismissing the appeal. (Para 28 , 29) |
JUDGMENT :
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
Aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondent for the commission of offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ( in short, “the Act”), the appellant-State has filed the instant appeal.
2. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that on 3.3.2010, in the evening, a police party, headed by PW9 Head Constable Chaman Lal (Investigating Officer) comprising of PW1 Head Constable Paras Ram and HHC Chet Ram was present at Check Post Bajaura where Head Constable Purshotam (PW-2), HHC Bahadur Singh, HHC Tek and Head Constable Rakesh Kumar were already present for patrolling duty and a dog squad was also with them. At around 8:30 P.M. a bus bearing registration No. PB-02-BF 9841 came from Bhuntar side, which was signalled for stoppage by PW-9 and other police offi
Compliance with Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act is mandatory; failure to adhere to these provisions vitiates the legality of the search and seizure, resulting in inadmissibility of evidence.
Non-compliance with mandatory provisions of Sections 42(2) and 50 of the NDPS Act vitiates the search and recovery, leading to acquittal.
Non-compliance with Section 50 NDPS Act for personal search renders contraband recovery suspicious and vitiates conviction based thereon, as safeguards are mandatory.
Strict compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act is mandatory; failure to inform the suspect of their right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate vitiates the recovery of contraband....
The mandatory requirements under Section 50 of the NDPS Act must be strictly followed to ensure an individual's rights during searches; failure to comply renders any recovery and subsequent convictio....
Non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act during the search invalidates the recovery of contraband, leading to acquittal.
Strict compliance with the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, particularly in informing the accused of their right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, is mandatory and non-....
Strict compliance with Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act is mandatory; failure to inform the suspect of their rights invalidates the recovery of contraband.
It is imperative on part of police officer to apprise the person intended to be searched of his right under Section 50 of the NDPS Act to be searched only before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate.
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
