CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness

"Allahabad High Court Acquits  in NDPS Case, Citing 'Miserable Failure' of Prosecution to Prove Charges Beyond Reasonable Doubt"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) acquitted Aasha Ram, who had been convicted under the stringent Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (N.D.P.S. Act). The Court's decision, delivered on March 20, 2024, by Justice Shamim Ahmed, has raised critical questions about the procedural compliance in narcotic cases and the reliability of police testimony.

In 2009, Aasha Ram was arrested alongside Jagram Kewat, with the police claiming recovery of 150 grams of morphine. The prosecution based its case primarily on the testimonies of three police officers, leading to his conviction by the trial court. Ram, however, maintained his innocence, challenging the procedural aspects of his arrest and search.

The High Court, scrutinizing the compliance with the N.D.P.S. Act, especially focused on the mandatory procedures outlined in Sections 50, 55, and 57. Justice Ahmed remarked, "the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant." This observation was pivotal in the court's decision to overturn the trial court's judgment.

Significantly, the judgment highlighted the absence of compliance with Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act, which mandates that searches be conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. The court's decision emphasized the safeguards intended to prevent the misuse of powers by law enforcement agencies.

In its deliberation, the court also cited prominent Supreme Court judgments that underscore the importance of procedural safeguards in cases involving stringent punishments, such as those under the N.D.P.S. Act.

This ruling has brought to the forefront the necessity of strict adherence to procedural requirements in narcotic cases, emphasizing the rights of the accused and the responsibilities of law enforcement. The acquittal of Aasha Ram not only highlights judicial scrutiny of narcotic cases but also underscores the need for transparent and accountable policing.

Date of Decided : 20-03-2024

AASHA RAM Vs. STATE OF U.P.

Latest Legal News