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.

Case disposed Next hearing 08-Jan-2016

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

Code of Criminal Procedure Section 378

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HP(Not Applicable)

    Adv. AG

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SHASHI KANT(Not Applicable) Advocate - NEMO, KANWAR BHUPINDER SINGH,R

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 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.

  3. 25-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur,hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan SharmaView PDF

  4. 25-Apr-2026

    Hearing

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur , Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma

  5. 18-Apr-2026

    Hearing

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur , Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma

  6. 07-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur , Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma

  7. 28-Feb-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur,hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan SharmaView PDF

  8. 08-Jan-2016

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  9. 09-Jun-2015

    Case filed

    Registration No. CR.A/410/2015

casestatus.in Summary

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

Search Another Case