Dismissed

State of Rajasthan v. Shyamlal and Anr.

Rajasthan HC4 Dec 2017CRLLA/384/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order declined the State of Rajasthan's application for leave to appeal against the acquittal of accused appellants. The High Court upheld the trial court's finding that the recovery of opium was legally flawed due to mandatory non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, 1985, specifically regarding lack of time recording and independent witnesses. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Application for grant of leave to appeal was dismissed.

State of Rajasthan Vs Shyamlal and Anr. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Leave To Appeal No. 384 / 2015

State of Rajasthan

----Appellant

Versus

Shyamlal and another

----Respondents

_____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakad, Public Prosecutor For Respondent(s) : None present

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶10

/ Order

¶11

04/12/2017 :

¶12

Instant application for grant of leave to appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan in order to assail the acquittal of the accused-respondents.

¶13

In the present case, total one kilogram & five gram of opium was recovered from possession of Nandkishore and 975 grams of opium was recovered from the person of accused – Shyamlal.

¶14

The ld. trial Court, in its impugned judgment dated 06.07.2015, noted that during search, counterfeit articles were recovered vide Exhibit-P/2 and Exhibit-P/3 respectively. The opium was in the plastic bag, which was tied by the accused along with their waste. The ld. trial Court held that even though, an option was given under Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (herein after to be referred as the Act of 1985) vide memos ExhibitP/17 and Exhibit-P/18 respectively but on both the memos, time has not been recorded. The ld. trial Court further held that since the opium was tied along with the human body, while carrying search, Investigating Agency had to strictly comply with Section 50 of the Act of

¶15

(2 of 2)

¶16

[CRLLA-384/2015]

¶17

1985, as the same in the facts and circumstances of the case, is mandatory. The ld. trial Court held that no writing was prepared to the effect that no independent witness was ready and willing to be associated with the recovery.

¶18

Taking various factors into consideration, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. trial Court found the recovery to be doubtful. The view formulated by the ld. trial Court is one view, which is possible on the facts and circumstances of the case and the same cannot be termed as perverse.

¶19

Hence, there is no merit in the present application for grant of leave to appeal and the same is, hereby, dismissed.

¶20

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA)J.

¶21

ashok

State of Rajasthan v. Shyamlal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Rajasthan v. Shyamlal and Anr.

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

Suo Moto Vs M D Bangur

Prateek Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Manoj Kumar Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Smt Rekha Pahadiya Vs State Education Department Ors.

Smt Uganta Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Manvendra Singh Vs Shivratan