Back
ABHAY S. OKA, PANKAJ MITHAL
Mina Pun – Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Abhay S. Oka, J.)
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent.
2. In the present appeals, the challenge is to the conviction of the appellants for the offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, “NDPS Act”). The substantive sentence imposed on the appellants is ten years of rigorous imprisonment. The appellants were directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) and in default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years.
3. It is not in dispute that the appellants have undergone the entire substantive sentence and a sentence for a period of six months in default of the payment of the fine. The High Court has upheld the order of conviction.
4. The first submission made by Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned counsel appointed as Amicus Curiae, is of the violation of the safeguard provided in Section 50 of the NDPS Act. He invited our attention to the evidence of Sanjay Singh (PW-4), a Police Officer who was present at the time of the seizure of the contraband. He also invited our attention to the cross-examination of the said witness in which
Strict compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act is mandatory, and failure to comply vitiates the seizure and consequential conviction.
It is an archaic notion that actions of police officer should be approached with initial distrust. It is time now to start placing at least initial trust on actions and documents made by police. At a....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of Section 50 of the NDPS Act and the requirement of strict compliance with the provision, particularly in communicating the r....
Non-compliance with Section 50 NDPS Act for personal search renders contraband recovery suspicious and vitiates conviction based thereon, as safeguards are mandatory.
The mandatory requirement under Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act to inform a suspect of their right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate is crucial for ensuring the fairne....
Non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act during the search invalidates the recovery of contraband, 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 mandatory provisions of Sections 42(2) and 50 of the NDPS Act vitiates the search and recovery, leading to acquittal.
Strict compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act is required for the search and recovery of narcotic substances, and failure to comply can lead to the invalidation of the seizure.
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
