Narcotics Archives - Supreme Court of India Judgements

November 21, 2024 9:37 pm

“Divided Verdict in Narcotics Case: One Conviction Upheld, Another Overturned Due to Procedural Lapses” Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Sections 42, 50 and 67 – The appeals arise from a common judgment by the Gujarat High Court, dismissing appeals against a trial court’s conviction of the appellants under the NDPS Act for possession of narcotics – The main issues revolve around the compliance with mandatory procedures of the NDPS Act during the search and seizure, and the admissibility of confessional statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act – The appellants contend non-compliance with Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act, questioning the seizure procedure and the reliability of witnesses – The NCB argues that the procedures were followed correctly, the witnesses are reliable, and there was no motive to falsely implicate the appellants – The Court dismissed Anwarkhan’s appeal, upholding his conviction, while allowing Appellant’s appeal, acquitting him due to insufficient evidence and doubts about the seizure procedure – The Court found the evidence against Anwarkhan convincing but had reservations about the evidence against Appellant, particularly the identification and the admissibility of his confessional statement – The Court applied the principles from the case of Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, which ruled that confessional statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are not admissible as evidence – Anwarkhan’s conviction stands, while Appellant is acquitted and his bail bonds discharged. The Court directed Anwarkhan to surrender to serve the remaining sentence.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 351 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH FIRDOSKHAN KHURSHIDKHAN — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sandeep Mehta and Prasanna Bhalachandra…

Acquittal Narcotics

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Sections 29 read with 20(b)(ii)(c) and 25, 67, 41 to 44 – The court discussed the applicability of Section 67 statements and the compliance with Sections 41 to 44 of the NDPS Act – By virtue of the decision in Tofan Singh, the benefit is to be granted to the appellants herein in regard to the inadmissibility of their statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act 1985 – These appeals are allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment of the High Court as well as that of the Trial Court – The appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them by giving benefit of doubt.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw

2024:INSC:290 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SMT. NAJMUNISHA SOLE APPELLANT IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2319 OF 2009 AND ABDUL HAMID CHANDMIYA ALIAS LADOO BAPU SOLE APPELLANT IN CRIMINAL APPEAL…

Acquittal Narcotics

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(c) – Seizure of ganja from four accused under the NDPS Act – The Court pointed out the glaring loopholes and fatal flaws in the prosecution case, such as the doubtful weighment of the contraband, the flawed sampling procedure, the missing link evidence, the inadmissible confession, and the illegal conviction of the appellants who were not present at the spot.

Mar 8, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MOHAMMED KHALID AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal…

Acquittal Narcotics

(CrPC) – Section 313 – NDPS,1985 – Indeed, the appellant may not have earlier raised the issue regarding the inadequacy of examination under Section 313 of CrPC – However, in this case, the omission goes to the root of the matter as far as the appellant is concerned – Appellant has undergone incarceration of five and a half years – If, after the lapse of more than twentytwo years, he is again subjected to examination under Section 313 of CrPC, it will cause prejudice to him – Appellant’s conviction cannot be sustained – Appeal allowed.

Nov 28, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NABABUDDIN @ MALLU @ ABHIMANYU — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. )…

Acquittal Narcotics

(NDPS) – Section 52A – Disposal of contraband – Mere fact that the samples were drawn in the presence of a gazetted officer is not sufficient compliance of the mandate of subsection (2) of Section 52A of the NDPS Act- No evidence has been brought on record to the effect that the procedure prescribed under subsections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 52A of the NDPS Act was followed while making the seizure and drawing sample such as preparing the inventory and getting it certified by the Magistrate – No evidence has also been brought on record that the samples were drawn in the presence of the Magistrate and the list of the samples so drawn were certified by the Magistrate – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appeal allowed.

Oct 15, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH YUSUF @ ASIF — Appellant Vs. STATE — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 3191…

Narcotics Uncategorized

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 18 – Appeal against conviction – An appeal against conviction could not have been treated as infructuous merely for the reason that the convicted appellant had served out the sentence awarded by the Trial Court in any case, the appeal could not have been dismissed as infructuous – Appeal remanded

Sep 28, 2023 sclaw

2022) 1 ApexCourtJudgments(SC) 394 : (2022) 1 CriCC 387 : (2022) 1 RCR(Criminal) 119 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GURJANT SINGH — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB —…

Narcotics

(NDPS) – Sections 53 and 67 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 25 – Confessional statement – Any confessional statement made by an accused to an officer invested with the powers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act, is barred for the reason that such officers are “police officers” within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, a statement made by an accused and recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act.

Sep 26, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH BALWINDER SINGH (BINDA) AND OTHER — Appellant Vs. THE NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU — Respondent ( Before : B.R.Gavai, Hima Kohli and Prashant Kumar Mishra,…

Acquittal Narcotics

N D P S Act, 1985 – Section 8(c) read with Sections 21(c), 27A, 28 and Section 29 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 25 – Confessional statements were made by the accused to an police officer empowered under Section 53 of the NDPS Act and hence, bar of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, the confessional statements will have to be kept out of consideration – Prosecution has not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellants

Apr 30, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BOTHILAL — Appellant Vs. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Criminal…

Acquittal Narcotics

NDPS – Appellant has been convicted merely on the ground that he was the registered owner of the truck – Primary error committed by the Courts below while convicting the Appellant is that the onus is sought to be shifted on him to prove his innocence without the foundational facts having been proved by the prosecution – Hence, the conviction of the Appellant cannot be legally sustained.

Apr 30, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HARBHAJAN SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…

Bail Declined Narcotics

(NDPS) – Ss 8, 20, 27-A, 29, 32 and 37 – Recovery of ganja – no person accused of an offence involving trade in commercial quantity of narcotics is liable to be released on bail unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such an offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail – Bail cancelled.

Mar 30, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. AJAY KUMAR SINGH @ PAPPU — Respondent ( Before : V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. ) Criminal…

You missed

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 376 and 313 — Rape — False promise of marriage — Physical relationship with the complainant under the false promise of marriage, leading to her pregnancy and subsequent abortions — Whether the FIR should be quashed based on the allegations and the delay in filing the complaint — The petitioner argued that the relationship was consensual and the delay in filing the FIR undermines the credibility of the allegations — The respondent claimed that the petitioner deceived her with a false promise of marriage, leading to non-consensual physical relations — The Supreme Court quashed the FIR, noting the long-term consensual relationship and the lack of prima facie evidence for rape under Section 376 IPC —The Court emphasized the delay in filing the FIR and the nature of the relationship, which appeared consensual —The Court referred to previous judgments, highlighting the importance of prima facie evidence and the misuse of legal provisions —The FIR and all proceedings based on it were quashed, preventing abuse of the legal process.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B —Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) — Financial misconduct and conspiracy — Whether the High Court was correct in discharging the respondent from the charges of conspiracy and financial misconduct — The CBI argued that the High Court conducted a mini-trial at the charge-framing stage and that there was sufficient suspicion to frame charges against the respondent — The respondent’s counsel argued that the material in the charge sheet did not make out a case against the respondent and that the High Court rightly discharged him —The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to discharge the respondent, stating that mere suspicion was not enough to frame charges – The Court found that the respondent’s role was limited to signing the memorandum prepared by senior officers and participating in the Management Committee meeting, which approved the proposal — The Court emphasized that the proposal had passed through various committees and that the respondent’s actions did not amount to criminal misconduct — The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was discharged from the charges — The trial against other accused persons will continue.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw

Municipal Laws

Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1951 — Sections 146, 423 and 488(1) — The Patna Municipal Corporation imposed a royalty on advertisements, which was later increased — The respondents challenged this imposition, arguing it was a tax without legislative backing — Whether the royalty imposed by the Corporation was a tax and if it was legally enforceable without legislative sanction — The Corporation argued that the royalty was agreed upon by the parties and was not a tax — They contended that the enhancement of the rate was within their rights — The respondents argued that the imposition was a tax, which required legislative sanction, and the Corporation had no authority to levy it — The Division Bench quashed the enhancement, ruling that the Corporation had no power to impose the tax without legislative backing — The Court found that the royalty was not a tax but a fee agreed upon by the parties — It held that the Corporation’s actions were within the scope of the agreement — The Court distinguished between royalty and tax, emphasizing that royalty is based on an agreement, not statutory provision — The Court upheld the imposition of royalty as per the agreement but noted that the enhancement in rates was not challenged effectively — The judgment of the Division Bench was set aside.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw

Constitution

Citizenship Act, 1955 — Section 6A — Special provisions as to citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord — The case involves the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955, which grants citizenship to certain migrants from Bangladesh to Assam —The main issues include whether Parliament had the legislative competence to enact Section 6A, and if Section 6A violates Articles 6, 7, 14, 29, and 355 of the Constitution — Petitioners argue that Section 6A is unconstitutional as it conflicts with Articles 6 and 7, adopts unreasonable cut-off dates, and violates Articles 14, 29, and 355 — Respondents contend that Section 6A is within Parliament’s legislative competence under Article 11 and does not violate the Constitution — The judgment addresses the legislative competence of Parliament, the reasonableness of cut-off dates, and the impact on Assamese cultural identity — The court examines the historical context of citizenship provisions, the legislative intent behind Section 6A, and the scope of judicial review under Article 14 — The court analyzes the constitutional provisions on citizenship, the legislative objective of Section 6A, and the balance between legislative intent and constitutional mandates —The court concludes that Section 6A of the Citizenship Act is constitutional and does not violate the cited Articles of the Constitution.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw

Category: Narcotics

You missed