REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Amzad Khan Appellant

V/S

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

RAJASTHAN. KALMA TUMKA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
GOVIND RAJU ALIAS GOVINDA VS. STATE. SEE TIKA RAM VS. STATE OF M.P. [REFERRED TO]
SOHRAB S O BELI NAYATA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
JOSE ALIAS KOLLI JOSE VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
BHARWADA BHOGINBHAI HIRJIBHAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. M K ANTHONY [REFERRED TO]
APPABHAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. BALBIR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
MOHINDER KUMAR VS. STATE PANAJI GOA [REFERRED TO]
TAHIR VS. STATE DELHI [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. BALDEV SINGH [REFERRED TO]
RAMMI VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. LEKH RAJ [REFERRED TO]
BHARATBHAI BHAGWANJIBHAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
LAXMAN SINGH VS. POONAM SINGH [REFERRED TO]
MEGH SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. PAWAN KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. OM PRAKASH [REFERRED TO]
GIRJA PRASAD VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
PRITHU ALIAS PRITHI CHAND VS. STATE OF H P [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P VS. SANTOSH KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
BIPIN KUMAR MONDAL VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
C MUNIAPPAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
GOVINDARAJU ALIAS GOVINDA VS. STATE BY SRIRAMAPURAM P S [REFERRED TO]
KURIA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal is filed against the judgment and sentence dated 13.11.2014 passed by learned Special Judge -I Sirmaur District Nahan in Sessions trial No. 57 -ST/7 of 2013/12 title State of H.P. versus Amzad Khan whereby learned Special Judge -I convicted the appellant under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985. Brief facts of the case

(2.) It is alleged by prosecution that on 15.10.2012 at about 10.20 PM at Balmiki Basti Nahan convict was found in exclusive and conscious possession of 288 capsules of Spasmo Proxyvon and 25 vials of Rexcof cought syrup without any permit/licence. It is alleged by prosecution that convict could not produce any valid permit or licence on demand. It is alleged by prosecution that sample seal Ext.PW4/A was drawn and NCB form Ext.PW3/D was also filled. It is alleged by prosecution that case property was took into possession vide seizure memo Ext.PW4/B. It is alleged by prosecution that ruka Ext.PW3/A was prepared and same was sent to police station for registeration of FIR and FIR Ext.PW3/B was registered. It is alleged by prosecution that spot map Ext.PW5/A was prepared. It is also alleged by prosecution that case property, sample of seal, NCB form and seizure memo were deposited and same sent to FSL through PW7 C. Raj Kumar vide RC Ext.PW1/B. It is alleged by prosecution that special report Ext.PW2/A was prepared and sent to Additional S.P. Sirmaur through PW7 C.Raj Kumar. It is alleged by prosecution that chemical analyst report Ext.PX was received.

(3.) Charge was framed against the accused on 10.12.2013 by learned Trial Court under Section 22 of NDPS Act. Accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

Click here to view full judgment.

AMZAD KHAN Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address