Rigours of UAPA Melt Before Article 21: Jharkhand High Court Grants Bail After Six Years of Incarceration Accused Cannot Challenge in Arguments What He Never Challenged in Cross-Examination: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds POCSO Conviction Counterblast Plea, Civil Dispute Defence No Shield When Cognizable Offence Is Disclosed: Allahabad High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Ex-Driver Accused Of Outraging Modesty Lawyers Who Burned a Colleague's Furniture for Defending Toll Workers Have Tainted a Noble Profession: Supreme Court A Suspicious Dying Declaration Cannot Hang a Man: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Murder Conviction IQ of 65, Memory Loss, Frontal Lobe Damage: Supreme Court Holds Brain-Injured Manager Suffered 100% Functional Disability, Enhances Compensation to ₹97.73 Lakh Cannot Be Forced to Pay Gratuity to Retired Employees Who Refuse to Vacate Company Quarters: Supreme Court Victim Who Incited Riot Inside Court Cannot Blame Accused for Trial Delay: Supreme Court Grants Bail in Section 307 Case You Cannot Sell What You Don’t Own: ‘Vendor’s Half Share Means Buyer Gets Only Half’ : Andhra Pradesh High Court Nagaland's Oil Laws Face Constitutional Challenge: Gauhati High Court Sends Union-State Dispute to Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 3 CPC | Will's Validity Cannot Be Decided in Substitution Proceedings: Himachal Pradesh High Court 6-Year-Old Loses Arm To Live 11kV Wire Passing 'Almost Touching' Her Balcony: Punjab & Haryana High Court Awards Rs. 99.93 Lakh To Child Despite Nigam Blaming Father For 'Extending Balcony' Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 To Quash Rape & POCSO Conviction After Marriage Between Accused And Victim NGT Cannot Order Demolition of Temple On Ground of Encroachment of Park: Supreme Court Quashes Removal Order For Want of Jurisdiction Hostile Witnesses & Doubtful Recovery Can Collapse Prosecution: J&K High Court Sets High Threshold for Criminal Proof Compassion Cannot Override the Clock: Karnataka HC Denies Job to Guardian Aunt Despite 2021 Rule Change” Second Marriage During Pendency of Divorce Appeal Is Void: Kerala High Court Appearing in Exam Does Not Cure Attendance Deficiency: MP High Court Upholds 'Year Down' Against BBA Student With Sub-30% Attendance Patna High Court Directs Bihar To Submit Detailed Rehabilitation Plan For Recovered Mental Health Patients, Expand Half-Way Homes Across State Rajasthan High Court Upholds Refusal to Drop Bharat Band Stone-Pelting Case

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.

Latest Legal News