IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
Jullias Francis – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRA-S-1243-SB of 2015
Decided On : 19-05-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. recovery and arrest procedures (Para 3 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments on procedural violations (Para 9 , 10 , 12) |
| 3. strict compliance with ndps act (Para 14 , 15 , 20) |
| 4. consequences of non-compliance (Para 18 , 22) |
| 5. judgment and acquittal (Para 27) |
JUDGMENT
Mr. Deepak Gupta, J.
In NDPS Case No.000219 of 2014 arising out of FIR No.165 dated 03.10.2013 registered at Police Station Bhogpur, District Jalandhar, accused Jullias Francis (appellant herein) has been convicted by the Court of learned Special Court, Jalandhar under Section 22 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 vide judgment dated 12.02.2015; and vide a separate order of the even date, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lac with default sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment.
2. Against the afore-said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, this appeal has been preferred. The appeal was admitted on 18.03.2015, and recovery of fine was stayed. To avoid confusion, the appellant shall be referred as accused in the later part of the judgment.
3. As per prosecution case, on 03.10.2013, ASI Bhupinder Singh, posted at police station Bhogpur, Jalandhar along with HC Bhagwant Singh and other police officials was on patrolling duty. The police party was going from Bhogpur towards Village Manekrai, Kojha Kotla. When the police party reached ahead of Village Manek Rai, the accused was seen coming on foot. On seeing the police party, the accused got scared and suddenly turned towards fields. With the help of other police officials, he was apprehended. On asking, he disclosed his name as Julius Francis son of Satar Masih. ASI Bhupinder Singh gave his introduction to the accused and told that he is suspecting some contraband in his possession and his search was to be conducted and also apprised about the legal right to get his search conducted from any Gazetted Officer, Magistrate or from him. The accused reposed confidence in the ASI Bhupinder Singh, who prepared the consent memo Ex.P1 of the accused in this respect. ASI Bhupinder Singh tried to join independent witness, but no one was available. He conducted search of the accused in the presence of police officials, which lead to the recovery of polythene bag containing narcotic powder from the left pocket of his trouser. The Investigating Officer ASI Bhupinder Singh separated two samples of 5 grams each of the narcotic powder and put into separate parcels and the remaining bulk contraband was weighed, which came to 160 grams and the same was put into a separate parcel. The Investigating Officer sealed all the parcels with his seal bearing impression 'BS' and also prepared sample seal impression on form no.29 Ex.PX. The seal after use was handed over to HC Bhagwant Singh. The case property was taken into police possession vide recovery memo Ex.P4, which was attested by HC Bhagwant Singh and HC Inderjit Singh. Accused was arrested vide memo Ex.P5 and his personal search memo Ex.P6 was prepared by the IO, who then sent ruqqa Ex.P7 to the police station through PHG Jaspal Singh, on the basis of which FIR Ex.P8 was registered by SI Satpal. ASI Bhupinder Singh prepared rough site plan Ex.P9 with correct marginal notes. SHO/Inspector Parminder Singh verified the facts and finding the case property and sample parcels in intact condition, put his seal bearing impression 'PS' on all the parcels and prepared sample seal impressions and affixed on form No.29. On the next day, the Investigating Officer acquired the case property from the MHC and produced the same along-with accused before learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate finding the case property in intact condition seen, signed and returned the same to the Investigating Officer and also passed the relevant order. After completing necessary formalities of investigation, challan was presented in the court.
4. The accused was charge-sheeted under Section 22 of the N
Ashok Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan
State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh
Offering third option of police search under Section 50 NDPS Act, alongside Magistrate or Gazetted Officer, vitiates recovery from clothing; combined with procedural doubts and contradictions, mandat....
Mandatory compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act is essential for lawful searches; failure to do so renders convictions unsustainable.
Non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act during the search invalidates the recovery of contraband, leading to acquittal.
Non-compliance with Section 50 NDPS Act for personal search renders contraband recovery suspicious and vitiates conviction based thereon, as safeguards are mandatory.
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-....
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 mandatory requirements under Section 50 of the NDPS Act must be strictly followed to ensure an individual's rights during searches; failure to comply renders any recovery and subsequent convictio....
Compliance with mandatory search procedures under the NDPS Act is essential for conviction; failure to adhere invalidates recovery and conviction.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.