Supreme Court of India Judgements

46980 Judgements hosted as on 13/12/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Narcotics

Narcotics

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) — Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29(1) — Conviction for possession of commercial quantity of ganja (23.500 kg) and conspiracy — Appeal against concurrent findings of lower courts — Absence of independent witnesses — Failure to secure independent witnesses is not fatal to the prosecution case, especially under the NDPS Act, if the testimonies of official witnesses are consistent, coherent, and credible, and no material doubt is raised in cross-examination. (Paras 12, 18, 20, 21, 22)

Dec 12, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1417 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JOTHI @ NAGAJOTHI Vs. THE STATE, REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Vipul M. Pancholi,…

Narcotics

“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…

You missed

Accident

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Fatal accident claim — Deceased aged 33 years, survived by seven dependents (wife, four minor children, and parents) — Calculation of income — Consideration of income from both documented employment (stone crusher unit) and agricultural activity — Although documentary evidence for income beyond salary was lacking, it is reasonable to presume some income from agricultural activity given the farming background — Claimants’ assertion of Rs. 6,000/- monthly salary from stone crusher unit (supported by employer certificate) accepted, as it is a reasonable earning expectation for such employment — Additional Rs. 2,000/- per month presumed for agricultural income, totaling Rs. 8,000/- monthly income for compensation calculation. (Paras 3.2, 5, 5.2, 5.3, 5.6)

Dec 14, 2025 sclaw
Service

General Provident Fund (Central Service) Rules, 1960 — Rules 5(5), 5(6), 33 and Note 2 to Rule 476(V) of Official Manual (Part V) — Interpretation — While Rules 5(5) and 5(6) read together do not automatically cancel a nomination where the subscriber fails to send a notice of cancellation and a fresh nomination — The express condition in the original nomination form stating it invalidates upon the subscriber acquiring a family renders the nomination void the moment the condition (marriage) occurs, triggering distribution under Rule 33(i)(b) to all family members in equal shares. (Paras 5, 7, 8)

Dec 14, 2025 sclaw
Contempt

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — Sections 2(c), 12, 19 — Criminal Contempt — Power to Punish and Forgive — The power to punish for contempt carries the concomitant power to forgive when the contemnor demonstrates genuine remorse and repentance, making the extension of mercy an integral part of judicial conscience — Contempt jurisdiction is neither a personal armour for Judges nor a sword to silence criticism — Court must treat the acknowledgment of contrition as a virtue and extend forgiveness where the contemnor sincerely acknowledges the lapse and seeks to atone for it. (Para 1)

Dec 13, 2025 sclaw
I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 9 — Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) — Application by Operational Creditor — Pre-existing Dispute — Adjudicating authority must determine if operational debt exists, if non-payment has occurred, and if a dispute existed prior to the demand notice (Section 8) — Dispute must be genuine, substantial, and not spurious, hypothetical, or illusory (mere ‘moonshine’ or ‘bluster’) — Court is not required to examine the merits of the dispute or satisfy itself that the defence is likely to succeed. (Paras 15, 16, 19)

Dec 13, 2025 sclaw