Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (2.57 seconds)Section 50 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 52A in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 42 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 21 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 52 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
State Of Rajasthan vs Jag Raj Singh @ Hansa on 29 June, 2016
17. On looking to the investigation papers, PW.1 who
being the search and seizing officer on receipt of the
information has not reduced the information into writing. The
said information exact copy has to be forwarded to the higher
officer, but in this case it has not been done. There is non
compliance of sec.42(2) of NDPS Act. in the case of State of
Rajasthan Vs., Jag Raj Singh reported in 2016 Crl.L.J
3336 the Hon'ble Apex Court made a categorical observation
that:
what section 42(2) require is that where an officer takes
down an information in writing under subsection (1) he shall
sent a copy thereof to his immediate officer senior. The
communication Ex.P15 which was sent to Circle Officer,
Nohar was not as per the information recorded in Ex.P14 and
Ex.P24. Thus, no error was committed by the High court in
16
coming to the conclusion that there was breach of Section
42(2).
Union Of India vs Mohanlal & Anr on 28 January, 2016
27. Further as per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court
in 2016 (3) SCC 379 in Union of India Vs., Mohanlal and
anr., also clearly highlights on the aspect that the article
seized by IO., shall be subjected to inventory as per Sec.52A of
NDPS Act. Herein this case Io has not complied the mandatory
provision for subjecting the seized article for inventory. On
careful scrutiny of evidence there are serious lacuna in the
case of prosecution which creates doubt about the case
projected. Therefore, the benefit of doubt has to be extended
to the accused. The evidence collected during search is in
clear violation of procedure contemplated under the Act. Thus,
to tie the strings together, there has been delayed submission
CCH33
25 Spl.C.C.101/2021
of contraband to FSL. The respectable localities were not
witnesses to the panchanama. No field test is conducted at the
time of recovery. The contraband seized is not subjected to
inventory. About apprising the accused his right to have
search as provided U/s.50 there is no plausible evidence. The
initial information received by the search and seizing officer is
not reduced into writing and it is not forwarded to higher
officer. The independent witnesses to panchanama were not
examined. Thus, there are serious lacuna in the case of
prosecution which creates doubt about the actual seizure of
contraband effected by the accused No.2 herein along with
other accused. Based on the above detailed discussions, I
proceed to hold that prosecution has failed to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that the accused has committed an offence
22(b) of NDPS Act Hence, I answer the point for consideration
in the Negative.