Back
ALOK KUMAR VERMA
Islam Ahmad – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Alok Kumar Verma, J.
Present Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 13.11.2007, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal, in Special Sessions Trial No.9 of 2006, “State of Uttarakhand vs. Islam Ahmad”, by which, the appellant-Islam Ahmad has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 20 read with Section 8 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, “the Act, 1985”).
2. Briefly stated the prosecution case as it emerges from re-appreciation of the evidence on record is that on 25.02.2002, informant Kailash Panwar, Station House Officer (PW3) along with Sub-Inspector Jagdev Singh Malik (PW2) and other police personnel were on patrolling duty at the bus station. Hukum Singh Khati, Circle Officer of Police, (PW1) had also come there. While the informant was talking to Hukum Singh Khati, he got a secret information that Islam Ahmad (appellant herein), a truck driver, is sitting under a tree on Pauri Road and has a lot of Charas. The informant requested Hukum Singh Khati to accompany him and said that according to the NDP
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 ....
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 of Section 50 of NDPS Act, 1985 makes sufficient case for acquittal.
Non-compliance with mandatory provisions of Sections 42(2) and 50 of the NDPS Act vitiates the search and recovery, leading to acquittal.
Non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act during the search invalidates the recovery of contraband, leading to acquittal.
Compliance with Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act is mandatory; failure to adhere to these provisions vitiates the legality of the search and seizure, resulting in inadmissibility of evidence.
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....
Strict compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act is mandatory, and failure to comply vitiates the seizure and consequential conviction.
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
