TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1263
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Leave granted. 2. These three criminal appeals are directed against a common judgment and order dated 27th June, 2024 [impugned order], passed by a learned Judge of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad disposing of a criminal appeal [Criminal Appeal No. 943 of 2012] and dismissing two other criminal appeals [Criminal Appeal Nos. 972 and 999 of 2012]. Such appeals had been carried to the High Court from the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 17th September, 2012 in SC No. 37 of 2010, recorded by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad. The appellants before the High Court, after being jointly tried, were convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ground that the evidence of the prosecution was more trustworthy without realising that want of substantial compliance with Section 52A, NDPS Act and Standing Order No. 1/1989 would render the case of the prosecution suspect and unsubstantiated. That apart, it has been shown from the judgment of conviction recorded by the Sessions Judge that several points that were urged on behalf of the appellants had not been considered and dealt with at all. 5. Insofar as the impugned order is concerned, it was jointly contented by Mr. Gupta and Ms. Madhavan that the same is cryptic whereas as an appellate Court, the High Court owed a duty to re-appreciate and re-analyse the evidence on record coupled with ascertainment as to whether the procedural s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tantial compliance would be sufficient for the court not to record an order of acquittal and that this onus of proving substantial compliance was duly discharged. 9. In the alternative, Mr. Vaibhaw argues that if this Court were to take the view that the impugned order fails to discuss the points raised on behalf of the appellants as well as re-appreciate and reanalyse the evidence as the First Appellate Court, it would be proper for this Court to set aside the impugned order and require the High Court to hear the appeals on remand, afresh. 10. We have heard Mr. Gupta and Ms. Madhavan as well as Mr. Vaibhaw at some length. 11. Having considered the arguments on behalf of the appellants, we find sufficient force in it. The date of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fore the Trial Court prior to 3rd July, 2010. It is difficult to accept the prosecution case that though there may not have been strict compliance of Standing Order No. 1/89, the seized contraband was not tampered at all. Keeping of the seized contraband by PW-3 in a separate room in his office for fifteen days could give rise to an allegation that the seized contraband was by itself substituted and some other items planted to falsely implicate the accused. To avoid suspicious circumstances and to ensure fair procedure in respect of search and seizure, it is always desirable to follow the standing order which provides suitable guidance for the officers investigating crimes under the NDPS Act. Should there be any departure, the same must be ....