discharge applicaton

IN THE COURT OF LD.
SHRI SATVIR SINGH LAMBA,

ASJ/SPECIAL JUDGE(NDPS), DISTT. WEST,TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI
S.C .NO. 314/2024
IN THE MATTER OF:
STATE …COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
KING OKORIE JOHNSON ARINZE & ANR .. ACCUSEDS
F.I.R: 53/2024
U/S:22/29 NDPS &
14 FOREGNER ACT
P.S:CRIME BRANCH
DELHI
WRITTEN SYNOPSIS ON THE POINT OF DISCHARGING

THE ACCUSEDS FROM SEC. 22 & 29 0F NDPS ACT.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. That the present written synopsis is being filled on behalf of

both of the accused on the point of discharging them under
section 22/29 of NDPS act.
2. That the accused are innocent person & they are falsely
implicated by the police official in the present case without
following the procedure established by law.
3. There is the settled position of law that compliance of
section 41,42,43 & 50 of NDPS act are mandatory & any
violation or non compliance of these provision will render
the entire trial vitiated.
4. That the primary investigating officer who is also
complainant in this case namely ASI Jitender kumar
overlooked the section 50 of NDPS act, whose compliance
is mandatory in nature.
5. That the above said I.O along with other police officials
dated on 5/3/2024 at 6:30 PM detained the accused from
Gali no.19, chander vihar,Nilathi. After detaining them
instead of presenting them before nearest magistrate or
gazetted officer forcefully took their written consent of their
personal search u/s 50 of NDPS Act & after fulfilling the
legal procedure forwarded the accused to judicial custody.
6. That there are number of judgement of hon’ble supreme
court which established the mandatory compliance of
section 50 of NDPS Act, some judgement are as follow as
per the similar fact of the present case:-
A) Relied on the case titled “ARIF KHAN@
AGHA KHAN VS. THE STATE OF
UTTRAKHAND,AIR 2018,S.C 2123” in this
case also the raiding police party obtained accused
consent in writing to be searched by the raiding
police party. Considering the above fact &
referring the judgement of vijaysinh chandubha
jadeja vs state of Gujrat hon’ble court held in para
23 “ that the requirement of section 50 of NDPS
act are mandatory & therefore, the provision of
section 50 must be strictly complied with.”
B) Relied on another landmark judgment of supreme
court titled as TOFAN SINGH VS. STATE OF
TAMIL NADU AIR 2020SC5592 author by
justice R.F.NARIMAN observed in Para 50……
“ thus, this(sec. 50) extremely important safeguard
continues, as has been originally enacted subject
only to the exception in sub-section (5) & (6),
which can only be used in urgent & emergent
situation. This court has clearly held that non-
compliance of this provision would lead to the
conviction of the accused being vitiated, and that
“substantial” compliance with these provision
would not save the prosecution case.”
C) Relied on the judgement of this court itself also

titled as STATE VS. ABDALLAH RAJABU
ISMAIL@ ABDALLAH & ANR. date of
judgement 26.7.2024 author by LD. ASJ/SPECIAL
JUDGE (NDPS) SHRI SATVIR LAMBA…..under
this case also the raiding police party obtained
accused consent in writing to be search of person.
In para no.24 the LD. Judge observed……”in my
considered opinion , the lacuna occurred in notice
under section 50 NDPS Act”
7. That the NDPS Act has a stringent punishment & special
presumption, under this act section 41,42,43,& 50 are the
only defence that we can say it could be available to the
accused, the significance & implication of these four
provison can’t be undermined. These sections play a
important role for fair investigation & fair trial , which is a
constitutionally recognized guaranteed right of the accused .
8. That in the case titled as STATE OF PUNJAB VS

BALDEV SINGH, 1999,6 scc 172 date of judgement 21
july 1999 at para 23 supreme court held that illegally
obtained evidence is not admissible in the court of law if it is
obtained in violation of section 50 of NDPS ACT , as the
provisions confers procedural rights to the accused which
are statutory mandated thus are deemed to be followed.
9. That in the case of TOFAN SINGH(supra) it has been also

interpreted that section 100 of crpc can be implemented
only in exceptional situation otherwise the compliance of
these section 50 of NDPS Act is must, Police official can’t
as a routine course follow section 100 where section
41,42,43.& 50 prescribe certain mandatory precondition.
10 That on the above said legal precedents accused are

entitled to discharge u/s 22& 29 of NDPS Act. The
Accused are innocent and if the trial will
proceed, he shall face mental agony and
physical and financial torture and these factors
can’t be compensated in future which may
cause irreplaceable loss and injury.
PRAYER
Therefore, it is most respectfully prayed before

this Hon’ble Court that it may kindly:-
1. Discharge the Accused in Case No. SC
314/2024, under section 22 & 29 of the
Narcotic drugs & Psychotropic substance
act,1985 by considering all the facts and
circumstances of the case in the interest of
Natural Justice.
2. Any other order which this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit in the interest of Justice.
ACCUSED
through
PLACE :-DELHI
Dated :-26.9.24 Counsel for
the accused

discharge applicaton

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

discharge applicaton

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

discharge applicaton

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE COURT OF LD.

SHRI SATVIR SINGH LAMBA,

S.C .NO. 314/2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

KING OKORIE JOHNSON ARINZE & ANR .. ACCUSEDS

WRITTEN SYNOPSIS ON THE POINT OF DISCHARGING

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the present written synopsis is being filled on behalf of

C) Relied on the judgement of this court itself also

8. That in the case titled as STATE OF PUNJAB VS

9. That in the case of TOFAN SINGH(supra) it has been also

10 That on the above said legal precedents accused are

Therefore, it is most respectfully prayed before

You might also like