Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, ROMESH VERMA
State of H.P – Appellant
Versus
Suresh Kumar @ Kalu – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal against ndps acquittal background (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. counsel arguments on perversity (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. witness testimonies on recovery procedures (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 4. inconsistencies in witness statements (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 5. lack of independent witnesses highway (Para 29 , 30) |
| 6. section 50 ndps non-compliance fatal (Para 31 , 33 , 34 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 7. timeline conflict parallel fir custody (Para 39) |
| 8. limited interference acquittal appeals (Para 40 , 41) |
JUDGMENT :
ROMESH VERMA, J.
The present appeal arises out of the judgment of acquittal as passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (II), Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. on 03.01.2015, whereby, respondent has been acquitted of the charges in case FIR No. 128/10 dated 24.04.2010, registered at Police Station Sadar, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. under Section 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short ‘NDPS Act’).
2. The story, as projected by the prosecution against the respondent, is that on 24.04.2010, ASI Pal Singh alongwith Constable Sanjiv Kumar, Constable Dhameshwar Singh and HHC Amar Singh, left Police S
Acquittal under NDPS Act upheld in appeal due to Section 50 non-compliance (invalid third option, improper waiver), witness inconsistencies, lack of independent witnesses on busy highway, and plausib....
Appeal against acquittal under NDPS Act dismissed due to prosecution lapses including no independent witnesses, material contradictions in evidence, sample weight variations, and chain of custody gap....
Appeal against NDPS acquittal dismissed upholding trial court due to contradictions in official testimonies, document/FIR anomalies, weight discrepancies creating reasonable doubt; appellate interfer....
Appeal against acquittal under NDPS Act dismissed; trial court's view upheld as not perverse due to witness contradictions, procedural lapses like unrecorded prior information, no independent witness....
Appellate interference in acquittal limited to perverse findings or sole guilt view; upheld where contradictions, non-examination of independent witnesses, and custody lapses render prosecution case ....
Appeal against acquittal – No interference is required with appeal against acquittal merely because some other view is possible.
Non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act vitiates the search and recovery process, reinforcing the presumption of innocence in acquittal cases.
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....
Appeal against acquittal under NDPS Act: Interference only if trial court's view perverse or impossible; here, witness inconsistencies, procedural lapses justify upholding acquittal.
The appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and the trial court's findings unless compelling reasons exist to overturn an acquittal.
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
