Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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