Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, SUSHIL KUKREJA
State of Himachal Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Soni – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. police recovered charas from accused during personal search (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 17) |
| 2. arguments on trial errors and joint consent violation (Para 7 , 8 , 21) |
| 3. limited appellate interference with acquittal unless perverse (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. sunil case overruled; no thc percentage needed for charas (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. joint section 50 consent invalidates ndps search (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 6. appeal dismissed for section 50 non-compliance (Para 26 , 27) |
Judgment :
Sushil Kukreja, J.
The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant- State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) against the judgment of acquittal dated 30.04.2013 passed by the learned Special Judge, Chamba, District Chamba, HP, in Sessions Trial No.49/12, whereby the accused persons (respondents herein) were acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the ‘NDPS Act’).
2. Facts of the case, in brief, giving rise to instant appeal as per the prosecution story, are that on 08.05.2012, a police party headed by HC Devanand, while on patrolling duty towards Kapahdi Mod- Madhuwad-
Joint consent memo informing personal search right to multiple accused violates mandatory individual communication requirement, vitiating recovery despite resin presence confirming contraband.
(1) Appeal against acquittal – If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of evidence on record, Appellate Court should not disturb finding of acquittal recorded by trial Court.(2) Seizure of ....
Offering third option of police search under Section 50 NDPS Act, alongside Magistrate or Gazetted Officer, vitiates recovery; strict compliance mandatory, non-compliance plus discrepancies entitle a....
The appellate court cannot overturn an acquittal unless the trial court's view is unreasonable; failure to comply with mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act renders evidence inadmissible....
Seizure of Charas – Legal right provided to accused under Section 50 of NDPS Act is indefeasible.
Non-compliance with mandatory provisions of Sections 42(2) and 50 of the NDPS Act vitiates the search and recovery, leading to acquittal.
The court upheld the trial court's acquittal of the accused due to significant procedural violations and lack of evidence connecting them to the alleged drug possession.
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
