Back
State of J&K – Appellant
Versus
Romesh Kumar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, J.
1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13.08.2010, passed by learned Special Judge Udhampur (hereinafter to be referred as the “Trial court”) in Case FIR No. 53/2008 registered with Police Station Udhampur, for commission of offence punishable under section 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “the Act”) by virtue whereof the respondent-Romesh Kumar has been acquitted of the aforesaid charges.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 21.03.2008 at about 12.30 PM, SHO Police Station Udhampur along with constables was on patrol duty at Mian Bhag near Industrial Estate Dhar Road Udhampur and during checking and frisking, he found a person coming from Mian Bhag side towards Udhampur holding a plastic bag in his hand and on seeing them, he tried to flee from the spot. The police party apprehended him who disclosed his name as Romesh Kumar S/o Titroo. On search, 51 pieces of charas covered in maize cob leaves, weighing about 3.5 Kgs were recovered from his possession. A docket was forwarded by SHO to Police Station Udhampur for registration of case and, accordingly, FIR No. 53/2008 for offence punishable
The principles relating to interference by the High Court in appeals against acquittal are well settled. While High Court can review entire evidence and reach its own conclusions, it will not interfe....
In NDPS cases, the prosecution is required to prove the safe custody of the seized contraband and the integrity of the evidence chain, failing which an acquittal is justified.
Procedural compliance, veracity of prosecution story, and the role of the Executive Magistrate in resealing the sample are crucial legal principles established in the judgment.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for compliance with procedural safeguards and fair procedure in the investigation and trial of cases under the NDPS Act.
The High Court affirmed that, in chance recovery cases, compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act is not mandatory, reinforcing the credibility of police testimony despite the absence of independent....
The recovery and seizure of contraband in NDPS cases must be proved beyond any shadow of doubt, and any substantial discrepancies or infirmities in the prosecution's case can lead to the acquittal of....
: Prosecution is not only required to prove that contraband was recovered from accused but it is also obligatory on part of Investigating Officer to bring material on record that after recovery was m....
The appellate court affirmed that a trial court's acquittal may not be disturbed unless it is found to suffer from patent perversity or misreading of evidence.
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....
The court held that the prosecution's reliance on police witnesses is valid despite absence of independent witnesses, emphasizing that procedural defects in sample collection did not automatically in....
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
