STATE OF HP(Not Applicable) vs SHASHI KANT(Not Applicable) Advocate - NEMO, KANWAR BHUPINDER SINGH,R — CR.A/410/2015
Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 378. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 06th May 2026.
CNR: HPHC010143632015
Filing Number
CR.A/20331/2015
Filing Date
09-Jun-2015
Registration No
CR.A/410/2015
Registration Date
01-Oct-2015
Judge
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur , Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur , Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma
Bench Type
Single
Category
CRIMINAL APPEAL ( 30 )
Sub-Category
APPEAL AGAINST ACQUITTAL FOR OFFENCES UNDER IPC ( 2 )
Judicial Branch
Criminal Section
Decision Date
06-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Disposed Off
Last updated 02-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.STATE OF HP(Not Applicable)
Adv. AG
Respondent(s)
-
1.SHASHI KANT(Not Applicable) Advocate - NEMO, KANWAR BHUPINDER SINGH,R
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
06-May-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur,hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan SharmaView PDF
Case Summary: CR.A /410/2015 - State of HP v. Shashi Kant Court Decision: The High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed the State's criminal appeal and upheld Shashi Kant's acquittal, finding that Section 50 of the NDPS Act was violated during the search. Key Facts: Police recovered 150 grams of cannabis-charas from the accused's possession during a personal search on 22.10.2010. The critical issue was whether proper procedure was followed before conducting the search. Core Legal Issue: The trial court acquitted the accused because the police gave three options for personal search—before a Magistrate, Gazetted Officer, OR before the police officer on the spot—when Section 50 of the NDPS Act mandates only TWO options: search before the nearest Gazetted Officer OR nearest Magistrate. Offering a third option (search by police) violated the statute and rendered the recovery inadmissible. Court's Reasoning: The High Court held that giving an impermissible third option defeats the protective safeguards under Section 50, which require independent oversight to ensure authenticity and prevent misuse. The recovered contraband becomes inadmissible evidence and cannot support conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
25-Apr-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur,hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan SharmaView PDF
-
25-Apr-2026
Hearing
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur , Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma
-
18-Apr-2026
Hearing
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur , Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma
-
07-Mar-2026
Hearing
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur , Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma
-
28-Feb-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur,hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan SharmaView PDF
-
08-Jan-2016
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
09-Jun-2015
Case filed
Registration No. CR.A/410/2015
Case Summary: CR.A /410/2015 - State of HP v. Shashi Kant Court Decision: The High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed the State's criminal appeal and upheld Shashi Kant's acquittal, finding that Section 50 of the NDPS Act was violated during the search. Key Facts: Police recovered 150 grams of cannabis-charas from the accused's possession during a personal search on 22.10.2010. The critical issue was whether proper procedure was followed before conducting the search. Core Legal Issue: The trial court acquitted the accused because the police gave three options for personal search—before a Magistrate, Gazetted Officer, OR before the police officer on the spot—when Section 50 of the NDPS Act mandates only TWO options: search before the nearest Gazetted Officer OR nearest Magistrate. Offering a third option (search by police) violated the statute and rendered the recovery inadmissible. Court's Reasoning: The High Court held that giving an impermissible third option defeats the protective safeguards under Section 50, which require independent oversight to ensure authenticity and prevent misuse. The recovered contraband becomes inadmissible evidence and cannot support conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts