Back
MOHD. FAIZ ALAM KHAN
Baijnath Prasad Sah Kanoo – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan, J.
The above criminal appeals are connected with each other and for the sake of convenience and in order to avoid multiplicity and repetition of the consideration of arguments, appreciation of evidence and recording of reasoning, are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Heard Shri. Pal Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant - Baijnath Prasad Sah Kanoo in Criminal Appeal No.3162 of 2023, Shri. Shakti Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the appellant - Chandrashekhar Prasad Sah in Criminal Appeal No.2986 of 2023, Shri. Apoorva Jyoti, learned counsel for the appellant - Pankaj Kumar in Criminal Appeal No.529 of 2024 as well as Shri. Digvijay Nath Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the D.R.I. and perused the record.
3. Above mentioned criminal appeals have been preferred by the appellants namely Baijnath Prasad Sah Kanoo, Chandashekhar Prasad Sah and Pankaj Kumar against the judgment and order dated 25.08.2023 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.11/Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, Lucknow in Criminal Case No.568 of 2017 (Union of India v. Chandrashekhar Prasad Sah and 3 Others) arising out of D.R.I. Criminal Case No.01 of
Compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act is essential for conviction; however, the absence of independent witnesses does not automatically discredit credible police testimony.
The prosecution must comply with mandatory procedural requirements in drug cases, failing which foundational facts required to establish guilt cannot be met, leading to acquittal.
In drug-related offenses, strict adherence to statutory procedural safeguards is mandatory for a fair trial, and non-compliance vitiates the prosecution case.
It was also held that they were not inexorable rules as there could be circumstances in which it may not be possible for the seizing officer to prepare the mahazar at the spot, if it is a chance reco....
NDPS Act – Search and seizer of contraband – Conviction set aside - prosecution has not complied with the provisions of Section 42 of NDPS Act as the information alleged to have been received regardi....
Non-compliance with the procedure for drawing up the sample of the narcotic, lack of compliance with the prescribed procedure under the NDPS Act, 1985 at all the stages, and the case being based on t....
According to Section 52-A(4) of the Act, samples drawn and certified by the Magistrate in compliance with sub-section (2) and (3) of Section 52-A above constitute primary evidence for the purpose of ....
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
