Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, JJ
Shish Mahmood @ Mahmood @ Manmood Son Of Late Samsuddin Hak – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Prayer:
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of appellant for suspension of sentence against the judgment of conviction dated 23.02.2024 and order of sentence dated 28.02.2024 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-II-cum- Special Judge, NDPS Act, Ranchi in NDPS Case No. 15 of 2020 (arising out of Tamar P.S. Case No.11 of 2020), whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted under Section 18(b) of the NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 years with a fine of Rs.1,50,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the appellant has further been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.
Facts:
2. The prosecution story in brief which requires to be referred herein reads as under:
As per the case, on 15.03.2020 at about 12:20 p.m., Chandra Shekhar Azad, Officer in Charge Tamar P.S. was informed by the SSP Ranchi about transportation of opium from Radgaon to Tata by Safari bearing no. WB-06-B-0616 and it was also informed that a team headed by Rural SP Ranchi was formed for conducting raid. Then after lodging a sanha, the officer-in-charge along with a police party proceeded for the spot and reac
The court affirmed that minor contradictions in prosecution testimony do not undermine a conviction under the NDPS Act, emphasizing the reliability of police witness statements.
Non-compliance with the procedural requirements under Section 50 of NDPS Act is not applicable when contraband is recovered from a bag rather than a personal search.
Mandatory compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act is essential for lawful searches; failure to do so renders convictions unsustainable.
Non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, such as section 42(2) and section 50(4), can render the prosecution case doubtful and lead to acquittal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions of the NDPS Act, including the requirements for search operations, personal search, and chain ....
Non-compliance with mandatory procedural safeguards under Section 50 of the NDPS Act vitiates the prosecution case, entitling the accused to the benefit of doubt.
Seizure of Opium – Trivial discrepancies cannot demolish well-established prosecution case, in which recovery of substance from accused has been proved.
The prosecution must comply with mandatory procedural requirements in drug cases, failing which foundational facts required to establish guilt cannot be met, leading to 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
