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

No Compliance of Section 42(2) Of NDPS Act – Rajasthan High Court Suspend Sentence

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur, in a notable judgment ([2023:RJ-JD:40022]), underscored the necessity of strict adherence to the procedural mandates of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The observation was made in the context of a suspension of sentence appeal by Asad Ahmed, who was earlier convicted under Sections 8/15(c) of the NDPS Act.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Farjand Ali, in his ruling dated November 21, 2023, emphasized the importance of legal compliance, stating, “It is an admitted position that no compliance of Section 42(2) of NDPS Act was made in this present case.” This significant statement highlighted the court’s focus on the procedural aspects of the NDPS Act in determining the legality of the narcotics seizure and arrest.

The judgment critically examined the role and authority of the seizing officer, noting the lack of proper empowerment under Section 42 of the NDPS Act. The court pointed out the procedural irregularities in the seizure operation, particularly the failure to comply with mandatory provisions like informing a superior officer before proceeding with search and seizure, as mandated under Section 42(2).

Acknowledging these procedural lapses, the court decided to suspend the sentence of the petitioner, who had been sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment. The suspension of the sentence was based on the potential reevaluation of the issues raised by the appellant, which might lead to an acquittal. Additionally, the court considered the duration already served by the appellant and the long pendency of the appeal.

While suspending the sentence, the court also set forth several bail conditions, including the execution of a personal bond and sureties. It also mandated regular appearances of the accused before the trial court and outlined the trial court’s duty in ensuring compliance with these conditions.

Date: 21/11/2023

ASAD AHMED VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Latest Legal News