Back
N. S. SHEKHAWAT
Chhoto Ram@Hakam(Since Deceased ) through LRs – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
JUDGMENT
N.S. Shekhawat, J.
Challenging the correctness and illegality of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.05.2000, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, whereby the accused Chhotu Ram alias Hakam son of Gurdial Singh was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 18 of NDPS Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lac, in default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year only.
2. Chhotu Ram alias Hakam had initially filed the appeal before this Court, which was admitted by this Court vide the order dated 02.06.2000. Vide the order dated 15.03.2007, the sentence imposed on Chhotu Ram alias Hakam, the appellant was ordered to be suspended during the pendency of the present appeal. On 17.11.2022, learned State counsel, on instructions from SI Suresh Kumar, submitted that the appellant had died. However, learned State counsel submitted that the amount of fine may be recovered from the legal representatives of the appellant, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the m
The conviction was quashed due to failure to comply with mandatory procedures for evidence collection under the NDPS Act, emphasizing the importance of a fair trial.
The conviction was overturned due to failure to comply with mandatory procedures under the NDPS Act, specifically Section 52A regarding sample collection.
The conviction under the NDPS Act was quashed due to failure to comply with mandatory procedures for sample collection, emphasizing the importance of due process in narcotics cases.
Strict compliance with the statutory provisions of the NDPS Act, particularly in cases involving the seizure and disposal of contraband, is crucial to establish the integrity of the evidence and the ....
Possession of narcotic substances can result in conviction under NDPS despite procedural non-compliance if evidentiary strength supports prosecution's claims.
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....
The prosecution's failure to follow mandatory procedures for search and seizure under the NDPS Act vitiated the trial, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Failure to comply with mandatory procedures under the NDPS Act vitiates conviction, necessitating primary evidence for a valid trial.
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
