Back
ALOK KUMAR VERMA
Nukta Prasad – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
1. These Two Criminal Appeals have been filed against the judgment dated 04.09.2008, passed by learned Special Sessions Judge, Champawat in Special Sessions Trial No. 03 of 2004, State vs. Nukta Prasad and Special Sessions Trial No. 04 of 2004, State vs. Manoj Kumar.
2. Appellant-Nukta Prasad has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years along with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) for the offence under Section 8 read with section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short ‘Act 1985’) and in default of which, he has been directed to undergo further imprisonment for a period of two years in Special Sessions Trial No. 03 of 2004.
3. Appellant-Manoj Kumar has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years along with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) for the offence under Section 8 read with section 20 of the Act, 1985, and, in default of payment of fine, he has been directed to undergo additional imprisonment for a period of two years in Special Sessions Trial No. 04 of 2004.
4. These two criminal appeals are connected appeals,
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....
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 ....
Non-compliance with mandatory provisions of Sections 42(2) and 50 of the NDPS Act vitiates the search and recovery, leading to acquittal.
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.
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 ....
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.
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
