Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, RAKESH KAINTHLA
State of Himachal Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Jai Kishan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10.10.2024 passed by learned Special Judge-II (Additional Sessions Judge), Kullu, Himachal Pradesh (learned Trial Court)vide which respondent (accused before the learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘NDPS Act’). (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the police presented a chargesheet before the learned Trial Court for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 21 of the NDPS Act. It was asserted that S.I. Megh Singh (PW-7), Head Constable Jamal Deen (not examined), Constable Nitish Kumar (PW-2) and Constable Nitin Thakur (PW-1) were on patrolling duty at village Chhalal on 12.05.2012. They saw the accused going towards Chhalal from Kasol. The accused returned after seeing the police party and concealed himself behind a stone. The police became suspicious of the conduct of the accused and apprehended him.
Non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act vitiates the search and recovery process, reinforcing the presumption of innocence in acquittal cases.
In appeals against acquittal, the appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and only intervene when the trial court's findings demonstrate clear legal error or perverse reasoning.
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-....
The absence of independent witnesses does not invalidate the prosecution's case if police testimonies are credible, and Section 50 of the NDPS Act is not applicable when recovery is from a bag.
An appellate court must exercise caution in overriding a trial court's acquittal; substantial contradictions in witness testimonies and integrity of evidence undermine prosecution's case.
The court emphasized strict compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, holding that failure to inform the accused of his right to a personal search before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate invalidate....
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
