Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Jagdish Vs. State

Jagdish vs State

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Sep 25, 2000
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/681982

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Delhi High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 1996
Subject
Narcotics

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 15, 50, 61 & 85--Appeal against rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and fine Rs. 1 lac--Mandatory notice not served--Non-compliance of section 50--Conviction set aside. -

Key legal issue
Narcotics
Acts & sections
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 15, 50, 61 and 85

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jagdish

Advocate Mr. Roopesh Sharma,;amices Curia

Respondent

State

Advocate Ms. Santosh Kohli, Adv.

Legal References

Acts
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 15, 50, 61 and 85
Reported In
2000VIIAD(Delhi)1163; 2001CriLJ297; 88(2000)DLT131; 2000(57)DRJ372; 2001(1)JCC267

Excerpt

narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances act, 1985 - sections 15, 50, 61 & 85--appeal against rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and fine rs. 1 lac--mandatory notice not served--non-compliance of section 50--conviction set aside. - .....bring scale and weights. the poppy power on being weighed was found to be 15 kg. of which 500 mg. was taken as sample and the remaining poppy powder was made in two different pulandas and sealed with the seal of 'rls' and the sho also put his seal of 'sn'. the cfsl form was filled in and also sealed with the same impression of seals. the recovered poppy powder along with the cfsl form was taken possession of as case property and deposited with the malkhana moharar. a challan under section 15/61/85 of the act was made out against the accused. 4. the prosecution, in order to establish its case, examined 9 witnesses. the main witness, pw-4, asi jagdish parsad, when examined stated that no notice under section 50 of the act was given to the accused. he was declared hostile and crossexamined. he admitted that recovery memo, ex. pw- 4/c, had been prepared at the spot, but this, in any case, is not a notice under section 50 of the act. i have heard learned counsel for the state who is also of the same opinion that no separate notice under section 50 of the act is on the record. this mandatory requirement of law having been not complied with in this case, no conviction can be maintained. without going into further aspect of this matter, since mandatory notice under section 50 of the act has not been served on the accused, thereforee, i set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant, allow the appeal and quash the order dated 24.8.2000. the appellant, if not wanted in any other case, be set at liberty forthwith.

Full Judgment

ORDER

R.S. Sodhi, J.

1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24.8.1995 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court, NDPS Act, Delhi, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty of offence punishable under Sections 15/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (for short 'the Act') and convicted him accordingly and, thereafter, by his order 25.8.1995 sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs. one lakh and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 2.12.1993 SI Roshan Lal received a secret information that one young boy will come from Bareilly Express Train in general coach who will be having a black colour bag containing poppy powder and who will get down at Shahdara Railway Station. This information was entered in D.D. register and the SHO informed the ACP (Railways) about the same on telephone. Thereafter, the SHO along with ASI Jagdish Parsad, Const. Brij Bhushan, Const. Jagbir Singh and Head Constable Santokh Singh went to Shahdara Railway Station and some passengers were told about the information and one Parmod Kumar was joined in the raiding party.

3. At about 9.15 p.m. nakabandi was held at platform No. 3. The raiding party split itself in parts. At about 9.30 p.m. Bareilly Express stopped at platform No. 3 and one young boy having a black colour bag hanging on his left shoulder came near the stairs and he was stopped. The passenger revealed his name as 'Jagdish'. He was told about the secret information and a notice in writing was given to the effect that if he wanted, he could be produced before a Gazetted Officer/Metropolitan Magistrate for search of his bag. In the meantime, the ACP arrived at the spot. On checking the bag it was found that it contained six polythene bags which contained poppy powder. Head Constable Santokh Singh was sent to bring scale and weights. The poppy power on being weighed was found to be 15 kg. of which 500 mg. was taken as sample and the remaining poppy powder was made in two different pulandas and sealed with the seal of 'RLS' and the SHO also put his seal of 'SN'. The CFSL form was filled in and also sealed with the same impression of seals. The recovered poppy powder along with the CFSL form was taken possession of as case property and deposited with the Malkhana Moharar. A challan under Section 15/61/85 of the Act was made out against the accused.

4. The prosecution, in order to establish its case, examined 9 witnesses. The main witness, PW-4, ASI Jagdish Parsad, when examined stated that no notice under Section 50 of the Act was given to the accused. He was declared hostile and crossexamined. He admitted that recovery memo, Ex. PW- 4/C, had been prepared at the spot, but this, in any case, is not a notice under Section 50 of the Act. I have heard learned counsel for the State who is also of the same opinion that no separate notice under Section 50 of the Act is on the record. This mandatory requirement of law having been not complied with in this case, no conviction can be maintained. Without going into further aspect of this matter, since mandatory notice under Section 50 of the Act has not been served on the accused, thereforee, I set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant, allow the appeal and quash the order dated 24.8.2000. The appellant, if not wanted in any other case, be set at liberty forthwith.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial