Mere Reproduction Of Evidence Can Never Be Equated With Appreciation: Karnataka High Court Quashes Penalty Against Govt Employee Accused Cannot Repeatedly Send Cheque To FSL Till Favourable Report Is Obtained: Kerala High Court In NI Act Case Succession Certificate Cannot Be Issued For Gold Jewels Pledged With Bank, Applies Only To Debts And Securities: Madras High Court Order 11 Rule 14 CPC | Court Cannot Direct Production Of Documents Without Ascertaining They Are In Party's Possession: Calcutta High Court Undertrial Prisoners Don't Suffer 'Civil Death', Retain Fundamental Right To Alienate Property From Jail: Rajasthan High Court Direction For Reasonable Annual Enhancement Of Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Merely Preserves Its Real Value Against Inflation: Delhi High Court Testimony Of Sole Interested Witness Must Be Of 'Sterling Quality' To Base Conviction: Patna High Court Acquits Murder Convict Failure To Communicate Written Grounds Of Arrest Renders Arrest Constitutionally Infirm, Accused Entitled To Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 482 CrPC Petition Not Maintainable Against Order Framing Charge Under SC/ST Act, Appeal Lies Under Section 14A: Tripura High Court Disputed Questions Of Fact Regarding Title And Forged Documents Cannot Be Decided Under Article 226: Telangana High Court Matter To Be Enquired By Bar Council: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Lawyer's PILs With Costs For Suppressing Attorney-Client Relationship BDA Cannot Arbitrarily Reverse Resolutions Passed To Comply With Judicial Directives: Karnataka High Court Section 52A NDPS Act: Mere Non-Compliance Does Not Automatically Vitiate Trial Unless Evidence Is Doubtful: Punjab & Haryana High Court Seniority Must Be Determined From Date Of Substantive Appointment, Not Ad-Hoc Service: Allahabad High Court Uncorroborated Testimony Of Drug Inspector Cannot Form Sole Basis For Conviction Under Drugs Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Suppression Of Adverse Facts Strikes At Root Of Equitable Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court Denies Injunction In HUF Property Dispute

Serious Doubt About Prosecution’s Case When Samples Not Taken in Front of Magistrate: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in NDPS Act Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Calcutta High Court granted bail to the petitioner, Sah Jamal, charged under Section 21© of the NDPS Act. The Court focused on procedural violations in the handling of seized samples, crucial under the NDPS Act, specifically Section 52A and the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling, and Disposal) Rules, 2022.

Facts and Issues of the Judgment: The petitioner, in custody since 24-05-2023, filed for bail, alleging wrongful implication and highlighting non-compliance with the procedural requirements in handling and sending samples to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL). The core issue revolved around the samples not being taken in front of a Magistrate and discrepancies in sample identification, which the petitioner argued led to a violation of Section 52A of the NDPS Act.

Violation of Section 52A of the NDPS Act: The Court observed that the samples marked as A1 were sent to the CFSL without being taken in the presence of a Magistrate, constituting a violation of Section 52A.

Reference to Supreme Court Precedent: The petitioner’s advocate cited the case of Samarjit Singh v. State of Punjab, emphasizing the importance of proper procedures for sample seizure and handling as established in Mohonlal’s case. The Court aligned with this precedent, noting similar procedural irregularities in the current case.

Impact of Procedural Irregularities: The Court noted, “the act of drawing samples at the time of seizure, which often occurs in the absence of the Magistrate, is not in conformity with the law.” This misstep cast a serious doubt on the prosecution’s case, as the Supreme Court had observed in the Samarjit Singh case.

Overcoming the Rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act: The Court concluded that the petitioner successfully overcame the stringent conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which pertains to bail for offences under the Act.

Decision of Judgment: The Court granted bail to the petitioner, Sah Jamal, subject to two sureties of Rs. 10,000 each, one being local. The conditions also included regular attendance before the investigating officer and the court.

Date of Decision: 09/04/2024.

Sah Jamal v. The State of West Bengal,

 

Latest Legal News