Back
ALOK KUMAR VERMA
Devendra Singh Malik – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Present Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 15.12.2005, passed by learned Special Sessions Judge, Champawat in Special Sessions Trial No. 03 of 2003, “State vs. Devendra Singh Malik”, by which, the appellant Devendra Singh Malilk has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years along with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the offence under Section 18 read with Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, “Act, 1985”).
2. Facts to the limited extent necessary, are that on 07.11.2003, Sub-Inspector K.P. Singh (PW1), Constable Ramesh Ram and Constable Mubarik Hassan Rizvi (PW3) were on patrolling duty. When they reached near the bridge, they saw the accused coming from Nepal. Seeing the police, he started going back. On suspicion, he was apprehended at 15:00 hrs. He was asked the reason for running away. He told that he had one kilogram Charas. On enquiry, he told his name and address. Sub-Inspector K.P. Singh told the accused that he has to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazette Officer, so does he want to go to any of them for search. The accused said t
Non-compliance with the mandatory provision of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, regarding informing the suspect of their right to be searched before a Gazetted ....
Non-compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act, 1985 makes sufficient case for acquittal.
The mandatory provision of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, requires the empowered officer to inform the suspect of his right to be searched in the presence of ....
Strict compliance with the provisions of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is mandatory, and failure to comply with this provision can render the recovery suspect....
Strict compliance with the mandatory provision of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is imperative, and failure to comply can render the recovery suspect and vitia....
Non-compliance with mandatory provisions of Sections 42(2) and 50 of the NDPS Act vitiates the search and recovery, leading to acquittal.
The mandatory requirement of apprising the suspect of their right to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer under Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, and ....
Offering third option of police search under Section 50 NDPS Act, alongside Magistrate or Gazetted Officer, vitiates recovery; strict compliance mandatory, non-compliance plus discrepancies entitle a....
Non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act during the search invalidates the recovery of contraband, leading 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
