The High Court at Jodhpur heard an application for leave to file an appeal against an acquittal under the NDPS Act. The bench rejected the application, holding that the acquittal did not suffer from shortcoming in law or fact due to non-compliance of Section 50.
The application for grant of leave to file appeal is rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Crml Leave To Appeal No. 278 / 2016
State of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
For Appellant(s) : Mr. LR Upadhyay, PP, for the State For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Bishnoi
MON'B1,E MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Judament / Order
25/07/2017
By way of this application u/S 378(iii) & (i) CrPC, the State of Rajasthan craves leave to file an appeal against the judgment dated 28.06.2016 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS. Act Cases) Sri Ganganagar whereby, the respondents were acquitted from the charge sheet u/S 8/18, 8/18 r/w 25 and 8/18 r/w 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.
I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel representing the respondents and gone through the impugned judgment and the record.
As per the prosecution case, the SHO, PS Lalgarh Jatan was conducted a routine check on 9.3.2013 when he saw a white coloured car coming towards them. The driver of the car tried to turn the car on seeing the police party on which, a suspicion arose. The person sitting in the car namely respondents
(2 of 3)
[CRLLA-'278/2016]
Sukhpreet Singh and Kamardeep Singh could not give any explanation for their suspicious conduct upon which, attempt was madeto call independent motbir witnesses but since the place was a desolate one, the witnesses could not be procured, Upon personal search of Sukhpreet Singh being taken, a polythene bag containing 50 grams'opium was recovered from the pocket of his pyjama. Upon search of Kamardeep Singh being undertaken, a bag containing 15 grams of opium was recovered from the pocket of his pyjama.
The trial court acquitted the respondents for the reason that the 1.0. failed to ensure compliance of the mandatory requirements of Section 50 of the NDPS Act before taking personal search of the accused. Since the recovery was effected during personal search of the accused, compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act was essential before undertaking search. Since the seizure officer did not make any effort to intimate the accused of their statutory right u/S 50 of the NDPS Act, obviously the search was illegal. Consequently, I do not find any reason to grant leave to the State of Rajasthan for filing an appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 28.06.2016 which ex-facie does not suffer from any shortcoming; either factual or legal.
As an upshot of the above discussion, this application for grant of leave to file appeal is hereby rejected as being devoid of merit.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)J.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to grant leave to the State to file an appeal against the acquittal of the respondents under the NDPS Act.
Whether the trial court was correct in acquitting the respondents due to non-compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act during a personal search.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
State of Rajasthan
Sukhpreet Singh
Kamardeep Singh
SANDEEP MEHTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
