Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

Lack of Compliance with Section 52A Vitiates Conviction: Acquittal in 20 K.G. Heroine Case: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a seminal ruling delivered on October 13, 2023, the Supreme Court of India, with a bench comprising Justices ABHAY S. OKA and PANKAJ MITHAL, overturned a previous conviction related to the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The apex court emphasized that "lack of compliance with Section 52A vitiates conviction," highlighting the pivotal role of procedural integrity in legal judgments.

The appellant was initially convicted and sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment, along with a fine of Rs.1 lakh, under the NDPS Act for possession of commercial quantities of heroin. The High Court had dismissed his appeal, prompting him to seek relief from the Supreme Court.

The appellant's counsel, Mr. Narendra Hooda, argued that there were critical procedural lapses. Specifically, the seizure and sampling processes had not adhered to Section 52A(2) of the NDPS Act. The Supreme Court’s judgment underlined that following this section is "mandatory, including preparation of inventory and certification by the Magistrate."

The Supreme Court set aside both the conviction and sentence, pointing out that the lack of primary evidence resulting from non-compliance with Section 52A vitiated the conviction. The judgment read, "The conviction and sentence of the appellant are set aside due to the absence of primary evidence in compliance with the NDPS Act."

The apex court referred to the landmark Mohanlal case, emphasizing the necessity of following statutory protocols outlined in Section 52A of the NDPS Act.

The decision is expected to have considerable implications for future narcotics-related cases. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, the learned Additional Solicitor General representing the respondent, noted, "This decision reinforces the sanctity of legal procedures and will likely set a new precedent."

The judgment reiterates the necessity for law enforcement agencies and courts to adhere strictly to procedural norms, a tenet that gains additional significance in light of the Supreme Court’s verdict.

Date of Decision: October 13, 2023

YUSUF @ ASIF  vs STATE     

Latest Legal News