Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
SUKHVINDER KAUR
Surjit Singh Alias Tikka – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sudhir Singh, J.
The present appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 30.11.2015 passed by the Special Court (A), Gurdaspur, whereby, accused-appellant (Surjit Singh @ Tikka) has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years for commission of the offence under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act') along with the fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 02 years and further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 02 years for commission of the offence punishable under Section 21 of the NDPS Act along with the fine of Rs.20,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 06 months.
2. Lower Court records has been received.
3. The prosecution case was that on 14.08.2012, ASI Daljit Singh, along with other police officials, was present near Gurudwara Tapiana Sahib, Kinjad Pull Sua, in the vicinity of village Nangal, in connection with patrolling duty. In the meantime, accused-appellant (Surjit Singh alias Tikka) was seen coming from the side of village Pandori and on seein
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.
Mandatory compliance with NDPS Act's provisions for seizure and evidence is essential; failure leads to invalidation of convictions.
The conviction was set aside due to non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, specifically Section 52A, undermining the prosecution's case.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act in the seizure and handling of contraband substances, and the requirement for th....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of strict compliance with the procedural provisions of the NDPS Act, particularly Section 52A(2), (3) and (4), for seizure and s....
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 court ruled that non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act invalidates the conviction, emphasizing the necessity of a Magistrate's presence during evidence collection.
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
