Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA
Ajay Kumar Kashyap – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Daya Shanker Mishra, Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Abhishek Kumar Mishra and Sri Chandrakesh Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionists, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and perused the material available on record.
3. The instant criminal revision has been directed against the impugned order dated 17.10.2024, passed by learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Ghazipur in Criminal Case No.182 of 2024 ( State vs. Bhagchand Tanwar and others ), under Section 8 /21 of NDPS Act, whereby the application 24-B, moved by the revisionists with prayer to discharge them from charge under Section 8 /21 of NDPS Act has been dismissed.
4. The prosecution case in brief is that S.O. Amit Kumar Pandey, Police Station Jangipur, District Ghazipur accompanied with police team was present on 12.12.2023 at Lava turn trisection where he was informed by S.O.G. Incharge that he had got secret information to the effect that a person had come to purchase some narcotic (illegal heroin) at the culvert on Beso River at Highway No.31 and some persons are coming to sell it. He laid a trap placing
Confessions of co-accused before police are inadmissible as evidence, necessitating physical evidence for charges under narcotics laws.
A discharge application must be allowed if the prosecution's evidence, particularly confessions of co-accused, is inadmissible and no other corroborative evidence is present.
Confessions of co-accused are inadmissible without corroborative evidence; mere naming in such confessions does not suffice for indictment.
Confessional statements made to officers under the NDPS Act are inadmissible, and mere dock identification is insufficient for conviction.
Criminal proceedings require substantial, corroborative evidence, and charge framing must reflect judicial application rather than mechanical adherence to procedural norms under the NDPS Act.
Acquittal of the accused under the NDPS Act is upheld as the trial court's judgment was not flawed and adhered to evidentiary standards.
In narcotic drug cases, subsequent procedural non-compliance and shifting of occurrence location do not preclude ongoing trials; mandatory provisions of NDPS Act must be adhered to but are contextual....
A confession by a co-accused is inadmissible against another under Section 25 of the Evidence Act; therefore, the prosecution's failure to connect the accused with the crime led to acquittal.
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
