news details |
|
|
| HC upholds acquittal in NDPS case | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Oct 6(JNF): A high court division bench of Justice Virender Singh and Justice Bansi Lal has dismissed the appeal filed by the state against an order passed by the trial court whereby it had acquitted an alleged narco-smuggler as prosecution failed.
According to the police case, 63 packets of poppy straw, weighing 12.9 kg, were recovered from the hotel of accused namely Sadhu Ram at Chan Morian, Ghagwal. This happened on 13.11.2006 on the basis of a specific input. A case under NDPS act was then registered against him at Hiranagar police station.
The bench observed that the information was not taken down in writing to exercise power of search and seizure between sunset and sunrise. The recovery is said to have been made at 5 am and in view of the fact that this was a case of prior information, it was mandatory to reduce the information into writing and communicate the same to the immediate superior officer within 72 hours. Search has been conducted and recovery has been effected between sunset and sunrise without complying with the mandate of Section 42 of NDPS Act. Such violation goes to the root of the case and vitiates the entire exercise of search, recovery and seizure. In addition thereto, the chemical examiner has not indicated the morphine content in the sample and it is, therefore, difficult to arrive at the conclusion that the seized substance fell within the definition of the type of contraband, ie poppy straw as defined in the NDPS Act.
The bench observed that the flaws noticed herein above have been dwelt upon by the trial court in detail besides other defects which render the prosecution case highly doubtful. In any case, infraction of the mandatory requirements under NDPS Act go to the root of matter rendering the entire exercise of search, recovery and seizure of the alleged contraband vitiated. We find no substantial and compelling reasons to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of trial court.
With these observations, the bench dismissed the appeal filed by the state. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
