Dismissed

State of U.P. v. Faisal

Allahabad HC6 Sept 2018GOVA/3204/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a government appeal against an acquittal under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act. The trial court acquitted the respondent partly because the sample was not sent for chemical examination and noted potential lack of compliance with Section 50(1) regarding rights during search. The High Court found no infirmity in the trial court's reasoning and rejected the leave to appeal.

What did the court decide?

Leave to file appeal was rejected and the instant appeal stands dismissed.

State of U.P. Vs Faisal — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 3204 of 2010

¶3

Appellant :- State Of U.P. Respondent :- Faisal Counsel for Appellant :- Govt. Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned A.G.A. for the State-appellant.

¶6

By way of instant government appeal, prayer has been made on behalf of Stateappellant to grant leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 24.10.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 4, Rampur in Special Trial No. 127 of 2003 (State of U.P. v. Faisal), arsing out of Crime No. 348 of 2003 whereby the accused-respondent - Faisal was acquitted of the charge under Section 8/20 of The Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Police Station - Ganj, District - Rampur.

¶7

As per prosecution version, on 01.08.2003 at about 22.15 hours (10.15 P.M.), 250 grams of 'charas' was recovered from the possession of the accusedrespondent - Faisal.

¶8

Learned trial court held that it is not proved that sample of the recovered contraband was send for chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory, Agra.

¶9

From the perusal of impugned judgment and order, it reveals that the accusedrespondent was not apprised of his right to be searched before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate, in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat reported in (2011) 1 SCC 609. In the above case law, Hon'ble Apex Court observed that failure to comply with the proviso of Section 50(1) of Act, 1985 would render the recovery of illicit article suspect and vitiate the conviction if the same is recorded only on the basis of the recovery of the illicit article from the person of the accused during such search.

¶10

The quantity of the contraband alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant is much less than the commercial quantity.

¶11

The view taken by the learned trial court is possible one and based on reasoning. Accordingly, I find no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial court.

¶12

In view of above, the application seeking leave to appeal is rejected and consequently, the instant appeal stands dismissed .

¶13

Order Date :- 6.9.2018 I. Batabyal

State of U.P. v. Faisal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. v. Faisal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of U.P. Vs Afgan

State of U.P. Vs Abdul Hai S/O Abdul Hameed

State of U.P. Vs Ram Daras and Others

State of U.P. Vs Mohd. Ehtesham Faisal

State of U.P. Vs Akil and Others

State of U.P. Vs Vijendra Khangar @ Mahatey