Order Denying Permission for Peaceful Protest Rally Set Aside: Calcutta High Court Prolonged Custody Alone Cannot Justify Bail In Cases Involving Heinous Crimes: Delhi High Court Body Shaming and Sexually Colored Remarks Are Unacceptable In A Civilized Society: Kerala High Court No Mandatory Injunction Where Failure to Prove Ownership and Possession: Punjab and Haryana High Court Supreme Court Dismisses Article 32 Petition Seeking Declaration of Bombay High Court Judgment as Illegal Specific Relief Act | Power to Extend Time Under Section 28 Is Discretionary and Must Be Exercised Prudently: Supreme Court Failure To Comply With Statutory Mandate Under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC Renders Ex Parte Injunction Unsustainable: Karnataka High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging Withdrawal of Cabinet's Recommendations for Legislative Council Nominations Supreme Court Reduces Murder Conviction to Culpable Homicide in Absence of Premeditation and Motive Desertion Means More Than Physical Separation, Includes Willful Neglect: Delhi High Court Director’s Liability Under Section 138 NI Act Ends with Resignation: Supreme Court Quashes Complaint Against Former Director in Cheque Dishonor Case No Proof, No Ownership: Punjab & Haryana HC Dismisses Baseless Inheritance Suit Judicial Orders of Civil Courts Not Amenable to Article 226 Writ Jurisdiction: Patna High Court Chastity of a Woman Is a Priceless Possession; Unfounded Allegations Justify Wife’s Right to Live Separately: Orissa High Court Temporary Injunction Denied Based on Unstamped and Unregistered Agreement: Madhya Pradesh High Court Temple Surplus Funds Cannot Be Used for Shopping Complex Construction: Madras High Court Bail | Evidence Is Primarily Documentary And Already Recovered, Custodial Interrogation Of The Accused Is Not Necessary: Kerala High Court Delhi High Court Directs Respondents to Secure ₹157.75 Crores in Gas Supply Dispute Under Section 9 of Arbitration Act Arrest of Woman Post-Sunset Without Prior Judicial Permission Illegal: Bombay High Court

High Court Overturns Conviction in Major NDPS Act Case: ‘Failure to Follow Sampling Procedures Fatal to Prosecution’”

27 August 2024 1:02 PM

By: sayum


Allahabad High Court sets aside the conviction under Sections 8/20 of NDPS Act due to non-compliance with statutory sampling procedures. The Allahabad High Court has overturned the conviction of Sajeb Ali @ Shakeel in a significant case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, emphasizing the mandatory nature of sampling procedures. The court highlighted that non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act and relevant standing orders rendered the prosecution’s evidence unreliable.

Sajeb Ali @ Shakeel was apprehended on November 22, 2014, by police in Lakhimpur Kheri, UP, based on a tip-off. During the search, 9.8 kg of charas (cannabis resin) was found in his possession. He was charged under Sections 8/20 of the NDPS Act. The trial court convicted him on August 13, 2018, sentencing him to 20 years of imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000.

The High Court underscored the importance of adhering to statutory guidelines during the seizure and sampling of narcotics. The court pointed out several deviations from Standing Order No. 1/88 and 1/89 and Section 52A of the NDPS Act, which mandate specific procedures to ensure the integrity and credibility of the evidence.

The court observed discrepancies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, particularly concerning the handling and sampling of the seized contraband. PW-1 (Inspector Amresh Vishwas) testified that 100 grams of charas was taken as a sample, but it was unclear whether this sample was taken from each of the five packets or if the packets were mixed before sampling.

The court elaborated on the principles governing the NDPS Act, highlighting that strict compliance with procedural safeguards is necessary to uphold convictions. The bench noted, “The failure to draw samples in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 52A and the Standing Orders is fatal to the prosecution’s case.”

Justice Saurabh Lavania remarked, “Non-compliance with mandatory provisions, especially in matters involving severe penalties, vitiates the prosecution’s case. The credibility of the entire process is compromised if the statutory safeguards are not scrupulously observed.”

The High Court’s decision to overturn the conviction sends a strong message regarding the importance of following legal procedures in drug-related cases. This judgment reinforces the need for meticulous adherence to statutory requirements to ensure the integrity of the judicial process and the protection of individuals’ rights.

Date of Decision: July 23, 2024

Sajeb Ali @ Shakeel vs. State of U.P.

Similar News