Back
J. B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN
Bharat Aambale – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Leave Granted.
2. This appeal is at the instance of a convict accused for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) (ii) (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the “NDPS Act”) and is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur dated 8th July, 2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 731 of 2023 by which the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein and thereby affirmed the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Special Judge, (NDPS Act), Mahasamund in Special Criminal Case No. H-29/2017 holding the appellant herein guilty of the offence enumerated above and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 years and fine of Rs.1 lakh.
3. The only contention raised before us by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant herein is that the conviction could be said to have stood vitiated because of the non-compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS, Act.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant placed strong reliance on the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Union of India v. Mohan Lal & Anr. reported in (2016) 3 SCC 379 to make good his subm
(1) Disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances – Even in cases where there is non-compliance with procedural requirements of Section 52A, it does not necessarily vitiate trial or w....
Possession of narcotic substances can result in conviction under NDPS despite procedural non-compliance if evidentiary strength supports prosecution's claims.
The prosecution must prove possession of narcotics beyond reasonable doubt, and procedural lapses do not automatically invalidate a conviction if credible evidence supports the case.
Non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act, requiring samples to be drawn and certified by a Magistrate, vitiates the trial as it fails to produce primary evidence.
Non-compliance with procedural requirements under the NDPS Act, specifically Section 52A, can lead to the exclusion of seized contraband as valid evidence in trial.
Failure to comply with mandatory sampling procedures under Section 52A of the NDPS Act invalidates the prosecution's case, leading to acquittal.
(1) In NDPS cases, where offence is punishable with minimum sentence of ten years, accused shall generally be not released on bail – Negation of bail is rule and its grant is an exception.(2) Any lap....
The conviction under the NDPS Act was quashed due to failure to comply with mandatory procedures for sample collection, emphasizing the importance of due process in narcotics cases.
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
