State Of U.P. vs Shyam Lal And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 3903 ALL

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 3903 ALL
Judgement Date : 7 February, 2023

Allahabad High Court

State Of U.P. vs Shyam Lal And Another on 7 February, 2023

Bench: Samit Gopal




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 69
 

 
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 48 of 1998
 

 
Appellant :- State of U.P.
 
Respondent :- Shyam Lal And Another
 
Counsel for Appellant :- A.K. Mishra
 

 
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

List revised.

Heard Sri U. P. Singh, learned AGA for the State-Appellant.

As per the office report dated 06.02.2023, the lower court records have been received.

The matter is listed for admission.

The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 07.11.1997 passed by learned Special Judge, Basti in Special Sessions Trial No. 2/1996 (State vs. Shyam Lal and another) whereby learned Special Judge acquitted the respondents herein of the offence under Section 20 (B) of N.D.P.S. Act.

The appeal, insofar as the opposite party No.1 Shyam Lal is concerned, stands abated vide order dated 06.05.2019.

Perused the records and the impugned judgment and order dated 07.11.1997.

The trial court while acquitting the opposite party/accused has given a finding that insofar as the recovery memo is concerned, the copy of the same was not given to the accused and neither is there any reason or noting in the same regarding the fact as to why the same has not been given to them. The trial court has further returned a finding that the provisions of Section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act have not been complied with as have been laid down by the Apex Court and the Act. It has also returned a finding that Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act will not be attracted in the present case and also the non-compliance of Section 57 would not lead to any prejudice to the accused but has doubted the recovery memo since the non-supply of copy to the accused was apparent and there was no justifiable reason mentioned by the prosecution in it. Further the trial court has also returned a finding that the sample did not contain any signature of any witness on it.

In view of the same, this court does not find it a fit case for interference. Even otherwise the grounds taken in the application under Section 5 Cr.P.C. are not sufficient for condoning the delay.

Leave to appeal is rejected even by ignoring the ground of limitation.

Order Date :- 7.2.2023

Vijay

(Samit Gopal, J.)