Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
N.S.SHEKHAWAT, SUKHVINDER KAUR
State Of Haryana – Appellant
Versus
Amarjeet Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sukhvinder Kaur, J.
The appellant-State has preferred the instant appeal against judgment dated 14.08.2003, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, vide which respondents-accused Amarjeet Singh and Parkash Chand have been acquitted.
2. Factual Scenario, as per prosecution version is that on 15.12.2002, police party headed by ASI Mahabir Singh received secret information that two youngsters, who indulge in the trade of selling opium, had gone towards Odhan for purchasing opium in car bearing registration No.DL-5C-5385 and they would return through the same route and if their search was conducted, a huge quantity of opium could be recovered. On the basis of said information, Nakabandi was conducted and the said car was signalled to stop. The driver stopped the car and disclosed his name as Amarjeet Singh and the other person disclosed his name as Parkash Chand.
3. The search of the car was conducted and an one dibba tin was recovered from the boot of the car, wherein some narcotic substance was suspected. The accused were served with notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, who did not repose faith in the police and opted to get the search conducted in the presence
Impermissibility of non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act.
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 ....
The court upheld the trial court's acquittal of the accused due to significant procedural violations and lack of evidence connecting them to the alleged drug possession.
The conviction under the N.D.P.S. Act was overturned due to significant procedural violations on search and seizure, establishing that prosecution must comply with established legal protocols.
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 ....
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
