Back
ALOK KUMAR VERMA
State of Uttarakhand – Appellant
Versus
Bishan Ram – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
1. Present Government Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 25.05.2004, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bageshwar in Special Sessions Trial No. 8 of 2002, State vs. Bishan Ram, by which, the respondent-accused has been acquitted of the charge under Section 20 (b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short “Act, 1985”).
2. Briefly stated the prosecution case as it emerges from re-appreciation of the evidence on record that on 21.02.2002, Inspector - Jagdish Pal (PW 2), SSI Harendra Singh (PW 3) along with other police personnel were on patrolling duty. When they reached the tri-junction leading to the Chandika temple, they saw the accused coming from the front. Seeing the police personnel, he ran away. On suspicion, he was apprehended at 17:30 hrs. He was asked the reason for running away. He told that he had 200 grams of Charas. On enquiry, he told his name and address. He was asked whether he wanted to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. He replied that he did not want to be searched before the Magistrate or Gazetted Officer. He asked them to search him. His personal search was conducted. On se
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 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.
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....
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 ....
Non-compliance with mandatory provisions of Sections 42(2) and 50 of the NDPS Act vitiates the search and recovery, leading to acquittal.
Strict compliance with the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, particularly in informing the accused of their right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, is mandatory and non-....
Non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act during the search invalidates the recovery of contraband, 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....
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
