Back
N. S. SHEKHAWAT
Samey Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction under ndps act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. prosecution's evidence and witness testimonies. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. arguments on compliance with ndps provisions. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. supreme court interpretations of sections 42 & 50 of ndps. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. appeal allowed, previous conviction overturned. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT
N.S. Shekhawat, J.
The present appeal challenges the impugned judgment of conviction 13.07.2004 and order of sentence dated 15.07.2004 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Panchkula, whereby, the present appellants were convicted under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the NDPS Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each alongwith default stipulation.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 19.04.2002, ASI Karan Singh alongwith other police officials was present on Bus Stand Mauli for patrolling and crime prevention on a Government vehicle and in the meantime, a secret information was received that three persons, namely, Virender son of Sadhu Ram, Samey Singh son of Badan Singh, Randhir Singh son
The recovery of contraband from a public place does not require compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act, and the presumption of conscious possession under Section 54 places the burden of proof on ....
Total non-compliance of Section 42 of NDPS Act is impermissible.
Non-compliance with the recording of secret information and procedural requirements under Sections 41 and 42 of the NDPS Act can lead to the acquittal of the accused despite evidence for drug-related....
Impermissibility of non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act.
Strict compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, such as Section 42, is essential to protect suspects against false implication and ensure fair investigation and trial.
The court upheld the conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act for possession of ganja, clarifying the applicability of Sections 42 and 43, and addressing the burden of proof regarding po....
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
