Gratuity Is a Property Right, Not a Charity: MP High Court Upholds Gratuity Claims of Long-Term Contract Workers Seized Vehicles Must Not Be Left to Rot in Open Yards: Madras High Court Invokes Article 21, Orders Release of Vehicle Seized in Illegal Quarrying Case Even After Talaq And A Settlement, A Divorced Muslim Woman Can Claim Maintenance Under Section 125 CRPC: Kerala High Court Bail Cannot Be Withheld as Punishment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail to Govt Official in ₹200 Cr. Scholarship Scam Citing Delay and Article 21 Violation Custodial Interrogation Necessary in Serious Economic Offences: Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in ₹1.91 Cr Housing Scam Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Not Every Middleman Is a Trafficker: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail in International Cyber Trafficking Case, Cites Absence of Mens Rea Stay in One Corner Freezes the Whole Map: Madras High Court Upholds Validity of Decades-Old Land Acquisition Despite 11-Year Delay in Award Parole Once Granted Cannot Be Made Illusory by Imposing Impossible Conditions: Rajasthan High Court Declares Mechanical Surety Requirement for Indigent Convicts Unconstitutional Once Acquisition Is Complete, Title Disputes Fall Outside Civil Court Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Appeal Lies Against Lok Adalat Compromise Decree Even on Grounds of Fraud: Orissa High Court Declares First Appeal Not Maintainable Sanction to Prosecute Under UAPA Cannot Be a Mechanical Act: Supreme Court Quashes Jharkhand Government’s Third-Time Sanction Without New Evidence FIRs in Corruption Cases Cannot Be Quashed on Hyper-Technical Grounds of Police Station Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Restores ACB Investigations Quashed by Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Completion of Ayurvedic Nursing Training Does Not Confer Right to Appointment: Supreme Court Rejects Legitimate Expectation Claim by Trainees University’s Error Can’t Cost a Student Her Future: Supreme Court Directs Manav Bharti University to Issue Withheld Degree and Marksheets Due to Clerical Mistake Disciplinary Exoneration Cannot Shield Public Servant from Criminal Trial in Corruption Cases: Supreme Court Customs Tariff Act | ‘End Use’ and ‘Common Parlance’ Tests Cannot Override Statutory Context: Supreme Court Classifies Mushroom Shelves as ‘Aluminium Structures’ Supreme Court Allows PIL Against Limited Maternity Benefits for Adoptive Mothers to Continue Under New Social Security Code Liberty Cannot Wait for Endless Trials: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Wadhawan Brothers in ₹57,000 Crore DHFL Scam Co-Sharer Has Superior Right of Pre-emption Even If Land Is Gair Mumkin Bara: Punjab & Haryana High Court Neighbours Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 498A IPC Merely For Alleged Instigation: Karnataka High Court No Party Has a Right to Demand a Local Commissioner — It's Purely the Court’s Discretion: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Civil Revision

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