Tuesday, 19, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

State Of Rajasthan vs Sukhmendra Singh (2025:Rj-Jd:18581)
2025 Latest Caselaw 11418 Raj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 11418 Raj
Judgement Date : 15 April, 2025

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

State Of Rajasthan vs Sukhmendra Singh (2025:Rj-Jd:18581) on 15 April, 2025

Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:18581]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
               S.B. Crml Leave To Appeal No. 488/2024

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                    ----Appellant
                                      Versus
Sukhmendra Singh S/o Karnel Singh Jat Sikh, R/o Pakakallan,
Police    Station    Ramamandi,          Tehsil     Talwandi,     Dist   Bhatinda
(Punjab)
                                                                  ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)           :     Mr. Shriram Choudhary, AGA
For Respondent(s)          :     --



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

15/04/2025

1. This leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated

14.12.2023 passed by the Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Bhilwara in

Sessions Case No.8/2019 whereby the accused respondent was

acquitted from the charges under Section 8 r/w Section 15 of the

NDPS Act, 1985.

2. The appeal is reported to be delayed by 135 days. Though an

application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed, I

do not see any satisfactory reason or explanation therein to

convince this Court regarding the delay in filing the appeal. The

judgment was passed on 14.12.2023, and the appeal was

submitted before this Court on 28.10.2024. The affidavit of the

learned Public Prosecutor who appeared in the trial Court is

annexed with the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

It is averred in para two of the application supported by affidavit,

that he moved an application for obtaining the certified copy on

[2025:RJ-JD:18581] (2 of 3) [CRLLA-488/2024]

17.01.2024, which was provided on 19.01.2024. Thereafter, he

had forwarded all relevant material on 30.01.2024 to District

Collector, Bhilwara. The District Magistrate and Collector, Bhilwara

forwarded the matter to the Law Department, Jaipur on

05.02.2024. The Law and Legal Affairs Department granted

permission to file an appeal on 27.05.2024, which was received by

the office of Government Advocate, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur

on 06.06.2024.

3. What transpired between 06.06.2024 to 28.10.2024 is

nowhere explained either in the application under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act or in the affidavit supporting. The State Authority

does not enjoy more power than an individual when it comes to

the explanation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Each days'

delay must be explained vividly in the application, supported by an

affidavit. After hearing learned counsel for the State, I am of this

considered view that no satisfactory explanation has been

furnished to justify the inordinate delay in filing of the appeal,

therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed on this ground

alone.

4. However, solely for the purpose of satisfaction and with the

view that a meritorious matter should not be thrown out on mere

ground of technicalities, this Court has had a cursory look at the

judgment under assail.

5. The accused-respondent was prosecuted for being in

possession of 6.500grams of poppy husk. The recovery in this

case was made by one Shri Hanuman Ram, Head Constable and

the matter was reported to the police through Exhibit.P11 to the

SHO, P.S. Pratap Nagar. Apparently, the seizure was not made in

[2025:RJ-JD:18581] (3 of 3) [CRLLA-488/2024]

accordance with the provision contained under Sections 41 and 42

of the NDPS Act. A Head Constable is not empowered to carry out

search and seizure of the contraband and arrest an accused. Any

seizure by an unauthorised police officer vitiates the recovery and,

consequently, the conviction.

6. The judgment of acquittal is well reasoned and elaborately

explained by the learned trial Court which warrants no

interference. Furthermore, the Appellate Court should be reluctant

or slow to interfere with a judgment of acquittal unless it is found

to be the result of total non-consideration of the material brought

on record, or is based on misappreciation of evidence, or is

vitiated by a serious legal defect. No such circumstances are

evident in the present matter.

7. Thus, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the

case, the appeal is dismissed both on the ground of limitation and

on merits.

(FARJAND ALI),J 97-Samvedana/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter