State of U.P. v. Narendra Kumar Maurya
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court rejected the State's appeal against an acquittal under the NDPS Act. The Sessions Court acquitted due to non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act and procedural discrepancies in the recovery memo. The High Court could not find any illegality to reverse the acquittal.
What did the court decide?
Leave to the State to file an appeal against the judgment of the Addl. Sessions Judge was denied.
What the court decided
Court No. - 15
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 1000160 of 2012
Appellant :- State of U.P. Respondent :- Narendra Kumar Maurya Counsel for Appellant :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
Heard Sri Diwakar Singh, learned A.G.A. on the application under section 378(3), Cr.P.C. seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 11.10.2012 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, District Barabanki acquitting the respondent of charges under section 8/21, the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred as ' NDPS Act'), P.S. Badosarai, District Barabanki.
As per the allegation contained in the aforesaid judgement, on 15.7.2008 at about 2.30 pm the Police Party apprehended the respondent on the basis of information received from a Mukhbir and during his personal search 260 gms Morphine was recovered from the pocket of the pants worn by him.
The judgement mentions that the original recovery memo available on the record states that upon being apprehended the respondent stated that he used to consume Morphine and he was having 260 gms. Morphine. The SHO told the respondent that his search will be conducted by a Magistrate or by a Gazetted Officer, whereupon the respondent stated that he did not want to be taken to any other person for creating further evidence and the SHO himself should conduct his search. The trial court observed that the recovery memo does not mention that it was told to the respondent that he had a right under section 50 of the NDPS Act to get himself examined before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. The consent letter prepared under section 50 of the NDPS Act was also available on record and in that also merely this much was stated that the SHO told the respondent that his search would be conducted by some Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer and it does not contain a mention that the respondent had been informed that under section 50 of the NDPS Act he had a right to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the conduct of search under section 50 of the NDPS Act was valid given the failure to inform the accused of his right to be examined before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer.
Whether there are sufficient grounds to allow an appeal against the acquittal of the respondent.
Whether the High Court should grant leave to the appellant to file an appeal against the judgment of the Sessions Court.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
State of U.P.
- respondent
Narendra Kumar Maurya
Coram
Subhash Vidyarthi
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · January
- Registered
- Case no.
- GOVA/1000160/2012
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Dinesh Kumar Maurya and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another
Uttam Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.
Rushil Tandon Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another
Alka @ Jyoti Dwivedi @ Jyoti Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another