State Of Punjab vs Mitter Singh And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 16238 P&H

CRM-A-2023-MA-2018 (O&M)                                                  -1-

219    IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH

                                          CRM-A-2023-MA-2018 (O&M)
                                          Date of Decision:08.12.2022

STATE OF PUNJAB                                    ......... Petitioner

                                      Versus

MITTER SINGH AND ANOTHER                           ..... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present :     Mr. Digvijay Nagpal, AAG, Punjab.

       None for the respondents.
            ****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

CRM-33991-2018

Application is for condonation of delay of 113 days in filing the appeal.

Keeping in view the averments made in the application, the

application is allowed and delay is condoned.

CRM stands disposed of.

CRM-A-2023-MA-2018

The appellant-State through instant application is seeking

leave to appeal in terms of Section 378 (3) Cr.P.C. against judgment

dated 30.11.2017 passed by Judge Special Court, Amritsar whereby

respondent-accused has been acquitted of the charges.

The brief facts of the case as emerging from record are that

the police apprehended respondents and effected recovery of intoxicant

powder. The Investigating Officer after completing investigation filed

his report in terms of Section 173 Cr.P.C. The prosecution led its

evidence. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused were

examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The respondents tendered their

1 of 2

CRM-A-2023-MA-2018 (O&M) -2-

statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

Learned Trial Court after scrutinizing record and

considering arguments of both sides concluded that there is non-

compliance of mandate of Section 50 of NDPS Act, thus,

accused/respondents are entitled to benefit of doubt and acquitted both

the accused.

Learned State counsel submits that it is a case chance

recovery and there was recovery of commercial quantity, thus, Trial

Court has wrongly acquitted the accused/respondents.

I have perused the record and heard the arguments.

It is undisputed fact that recovery was effected from the

person of the respondents and there is non-compliance of Section 50 of

NDPS Act which is mandatory provisions. Hon'ble Supreme Court time

and again has reminded the authorities that non-compliance of Section

50 of NDPS Act is fatal to the case of prosecution and it is non-curable

defect. The provisions of NDPS Act are draconian, therefore, need to be

strictly complied with. No case is made out to grant special leave to

appeal.

Accordingly, application seeking special leave to appeal is

dismissed.

                                                      ( JAGMOHAN BANSAL )
                                                             JUDGE
08.12.2022
Ali


                    Whether speaking/reasoned         Yes/No
                         Whether Reportable           Yes/No




                                   2 of 2