Dismissed

Abdul Ayub v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Oct 2019A482/24647/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings under Section 8/21 NDPS Act against the applicant despite laboratory report discrepancies. The court directed the trial court to expeditiously conclude the trial within six months and refrained from taking coercive action against the applicant until trial completion.

What did the court decide?

Application to quash proceedings dismissed; trial to be concluded within 6 months; no coercive action till trial concludes.

Abdul Ayub Vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24647 of 2009

¶3

Applicant :- Abdul Ayub Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Rai,Amit Kumar Singh,Ravindra Nath Rai,Satyendra Narayan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Counter and Rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties.

¶6

Heard Sri A.K.Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anand Srivastava holding brief of Sri Kartikey Saran, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the record brought on record.

¶7

This Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the criminal proceeding against the applicant as S.T. No. 20/03, under Section 8/21 NDPS Act, P.S. Purani Basi, DistrictBasti.

¶8

Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that in the recovery memo it was clearly mentioned that white powder was recovered. There was negative report regarding the sample sent from the articles recovered from the applicant. subsequently, reason known to the prosecution a second sample was sent and brown colour was found. It is next contended that as per expert opinion. it is not possible that without adding colour the colour of the heroin can be changed.automatically. The discharge application was also rejected. Fresh Laboratory Report dated 13.1.2004 is annexed as Annexure-5 to the present application.

¶9

The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case pending before the court concerned is refused.Consequently the Criminal Misc.Stay Extension Application No.5 of 2019 is also rejected,

¶10

Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the trial court is directed to expedite and conclude the aforesaid case in the aforesaid case, preferably within a period of 6 months from the date of production of certified copy of the order, provided the applicant cooperates with the trial.

¶11

No coercive action shall be taken against the applicants till the conclusion of the trial.

¶12

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶13

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed off.

¶14

Order Date :- 17.10.2019 IA

Abdul Ayub v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Ayub v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sewa Ram and Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Ram Ratan Kamal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Brij Karan Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod Kumar and Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Sanjay Soni Vs Union of India

Shiv Kumar Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P. and Another