Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Right to Be Considered for Promotion, Not a Right to Promotion: Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility for Retrospective Promotion    |     Inherent Power of Courts Can Recall Admission of Insufficiently Stamped Documents: Supreme Court    |     Courts Cannot Substitute Their Opinion for Security Agencies in Threat Perception Assessments: J&K High Court Directs Reassessment of Political Leader's Threat Perception    |     Service Law | Violation of Natural Justice: Discharge Without Notice or Reason: Gauhati High Court Orders Reinstatement and Regularization of Circle Organizers    |     Jharkhand High Court Quashes Family Court Order, Reaffirms Jurisdiction Based on Minor’s Ordinary Residence in Delhi    |     Ex-Serviceman Status Ceases After First Employment in Government Job: Calcutta High Court Upholds SBI’s Cancellation of Ex-Serviceman's Appointment Over False Declaration of Employment    |     Maxim Res Ipsa Loquitur Applies When State Instrumentalities Are Directly Responsible: Delhi High Court Orders MCD to Pay ₹10 Lakhs Compensation for Death    |     Wilful Avoidance of Service Must Be Established Before Passing Ex Parte Order Under Section 126(2) CrPC: Patna High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Maintenance Order    |     MP High Court Imposes Rs. 10,000 Costs for Prolonging Litigation, Upholds Eviction of Petitioners from Father's Property    |     When Detention Unnecessary Despite Serious Allegations of Fraud Bail Should be Granted: Kerala HC    |     Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Relocation Alone Cannot Justify Transfer: Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Move Case from Nellore to Delhi, Orders Fresh Probe    |     Punjab & Haryana HC Double Bench Upholds Protection for Married Partners in Live-In Relationships, Denies Same for Minors    |    

Compliance with Section 50 of NDPS Act Not Mandatory in Absence of Personal Search: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati upheld the conviction of an individual, Bhaja Jal, for the possession of 6 kilograms of Ganja. The Court, in its decision dated 29th January 2024 in Criminal Appeal No.394 of 2011, emphasized the non-mandatory nature of compliance with Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) in cases where there is no personal search involved.

Justice A.V. Ravindra Babu, presiding over the matter, observed, “Absolutely, there was no personal search of A.1. The Ganja was alleged to be found in the bag which was in possession of A.1. It is a case virtually Section 50 of the NDPS Act has no application when there was no personal search.”

The appeal challenged the judgment dated 11.03.2011 of the Special Sessions Judge in NDPS S.C.No.1 of 2007, where Bhaja Jal was found guilty under Section 8© r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.

Justice Ravindra Babu noted, “Having regard to the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution before the learned Special Judge categorically established beyond reasonable doubt about the recovery of 6 Kgs. Of ganja from the possession of A.1.”

Further elaborating on the role of the investigating officer, the Court clarified that though compliance with Section 50 was carried out by the officer, it was not a requirement in this particular case. The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the original decision and directing the appellant to surrender and comply with the sentence.

Date of Decision: 29.01.2024

Bhaja Jal  VS The State of Andhra Prades

 

Similar News