Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
CITATION
LEGAL PROPOSITION
SLP (Cr.) 73/2000 Whether poppy husks would fall within the exp
D.O.D.11.04.2000 ression "poppy straw"? Yes
Supreme Court
Akabuogu
Goadwin
Crl.A.999/2010
Ojimba v. Customs
D.O.D.26.03.2014
Delhi High Court
S.20
S.27
Page 2 of 76
S.21
S.50
Page 3 of 76
Page 4 of 76
Page 5 of 76
Cr. A. 264/2013
D.O.D.11.03.2014
Delhi High Court
Page 6 of 76
S.15
S.42
Page 7 of 76
S.50
S.50
Page 8 of 76
Basheer
Basheer
Kerala
alias
N.P. AIR 2004 SC 2757
v. State of
Page 9 of 76
2011 (1)
(Delhi)
JCC
Page 10 of 76
S.42
S.50
S.50
Page 11 of 76
S.42
Haryana
D.O.D.11.03.2013
Supreme Court
S.37
S.80
D.
Ramkrishnan
v. AIR 2009 SC 2404
Intelligence
Officer,
Narcotic Control Bureau
Page 12 of 76
State of Maharashtra
D.O.D.12.10.2000
Supreme Court
thereunder.
Held: Section 32A is constitutional.
sentence can be suspended by the appellate
court subject to the conditions in S. 37.
Public witnesses exhibit reluctance to join police
investigation to avoid repeated visits to the
police station and the Court.
In the absence of prior enmity or animosity,
members of raiding team unaware about the
appellants antecedents were not expected to
falsely rope him in the case in Delhi. No ulterior
motive was assigned to the police officials for
falsely implicating him.
Appellant has not placed any worthwhile
document to show that 72 hours period in
sending the sample to the FSL was mandatory
and its non-compliance was fatal.
Delay for fifteen days per se thus is not
consequential to throw away the prosecution
Page 13 of 76
case as a whole.
This discrepancy of 15 gms. in weight of sample small difference in weight loses its significance.
In this case, the vehicle was searched and the
Charas was recovered from the vehicle and
persons of the appellants were not searched. As
the recovery has been from the vehicle the
provision of Section 50 of the Act was not
required to be complied with. Appellants were
not searched at the place where the vehicle was
intercepted and searched but after they were
arrested, and brought to the Police Station, their
search was made to find out articles possessed by
them before lodging them in lock-up.
Both the appellants were travelling in the car
from which Charas was recovered and, therefore,
they were in possession thereof. They were
knowing each other. They were not travelling in
a public transport vehicle. Distinction has to be
made between accused travelling by public
transport vehicle and private vehicle.
Page 14 of 76
S.50
S.42
S.42
S.43
Page 15 of 76
S.50
S.42
S.50
Page 16 of 76
Page 17 of 76
S.42
Page 18 of 76
S.42
S.50
Page 19 of 76
S.50
S.52
S.57
S.50
Page 20 of 76
S.42
Hamidbhai
Azambhai
Malik v. State of Gujarat
Page 21 of 76
S.55
S.2
(xv)
S.68
Supreme Court
Cr. A. No. 545/2011
The secret information was reduced into
D.O.D.01.05.2014 writing by recording Daily Diary but it does not
Delhi High Court contain material facts, as spelled in judgment
Page 22 of 76
in judgment.
Non-joining of independent witness to the
recovery creates serious doubt about the
genuineness of the prosecution case.
The prosecution witnesses, did not divulge
the registration number of the Qualis; when and
from where it was arranged; when it arrived at
the office of Crime Branch and with which travel
agency the Qualis was attached.
Keeping in view the discrepancy in the
weight of the samples taken by the Incharge,
Crime Team and the weight of the samples
examined by the Scientific Officer, the possibility
of tempering cannot be discarded.
No investigation was carried out as to who
was the registered owner of the vehicle and how;
when and under what circumstances, the vehicle
came into appellants possession and if so, in
what capacity. It was also not investigated as to
from where the appellants had collected the
contraband and who was its supplier. The
movements of the vehicle prior to its seizure
Page 23 of 76
Page 24 of 76
course of justice.
S.42
Page 25 of 76
S.50
Page 26 of 76
Page 27 of 76
S.67
S.42
Page 28 of 76
S.42
Page 29 of 76
Page 30 of 76
S.50
Page 31 of 76
S.67
of Haryana
D.O.D.07.05.2013
Supreme Court
M. Prabhulal v. DRI
Page 32 of 76
S.42
S.42
S.50
Page 33 of 76
Page 34 of 76
S.50
S.42
S.36A
S.66
Page 35 of 76
S.42
Page 36 of 76
S.50
S.50
S.37
S.37
D.O.D.15.05.2008
Supreme Court
Narcotics Control Bureau AIR 2004 SC 2950
v. Dilip Pralhad Namade
Narcotics
Control
Bureau,
Jodhpur
v.
Page 37 of 76
Murlidhar Soni
S.50
S.42
S.50
Page 38 of 76
S.35
Page 39 of 76
appellant's guilt.
Cri. A. No. 302/2008
Failure of Investigating Officer to join
D.O.D.:25.04.2011 independent witnesses, however, by itself cannot
Delhi High Court be taken as a circumstance to reject testimony of
S.42
Rajendra v. State
Madhya Pradesh
of
Page 40 of 76
S.50
Rajesh
Jagdamba
Avasthi v. State of Goa
S.50
Page 41 of 76
Page 42 of 76
S.50
S.37
S.50
Page 43 of 76
written.
In any event the law as explained by the
Supreme Court is that the mere writing of the
FIR number on the arrest and search memos
cannot entirely falsify those documents.
Significant decisions is Radhey Shyam v
State of Haryana JT 2001 (3) SC 535.
Mere mentioning of the FIR on the seizure
memos Exs.PW3/E and PW3/F would not mean
that the memos were prepared after the FIR
came into existence.
Mere delay of one month in sending the
samples is not fatal to the prosecution.
If the prosecution version of the receipt of
secret information is accepted, there was no
necessity for the IO to have inquired the names
of the two persons.
For the purpose of applicability of Section
20 of the NDPS Act, the Court is simply to see
whether the substance recovered is Charas or not
Page 44 of 76
Ravindran v. Supdt. of
Customs
Roy V. D. v. State of
Kerala
Page 45 of 76
S.42
S.50
Page 46 of 76
S.37
Sami
Ullaha
v.
Superintendent, Narcotic
Central Bureau
Satpal Mann v. State
Page 47 of 76
Page 48 of 76
S.54
Page 49 of 76
Page 50 of 76
Siddiqua v. Narcotics
Control Bureau
Page 51 of 76
Page 52 of 76
S.50
intimation
could
not
be
treated
as
communicating to the appellant that he had a
right under law, to be searched before the said
authorities. As the recovery itself was illegal, the
conviction and sentence has to be set aside.
Once the recovery itself is made in an illegal
manner, its character cannot be changed, so as
to be admissible, on the strength of statement of
witnesses. What cannot be done directly cannot
be permitted to be done indirectly.
S.50
State of Haryana
Jarnail Singh
v.
Page 53 of 76
course.
Where a search is conducted by a gazetted
officer himself acting under Section 41 of the
NDPS Act, it was not necessary to comply with
the requirement of Section 42.
The tanker was moving on the public
highway when it was stopped and searched.
Section 43 therefore clearly applied to the facts
of this case.
S.42
S.43
S.50
State of
Ranbir
Haryana
v.
S.50
State of
Suresh
Haryana
v.
Page 54 of 76
S.50
State
of
Himachal
Pradesh v. Pawan Kumar
State of M. P. v. Bhura
Kunjda
State
of
Orissa
Kanduri Sahoo
v.
Page 55 of 76
S.50
S.50
State of Punjab
Balwant Rai
v.
S.15
AIR 2005 SC 27
articles.
18 bags containing poppy husk were
recovered from search of the cart. S.50 only
applies in case of personal search of a person. It
does not extend to search of a vehicle or a
container or a bag, or premises.
15 bags of poppy husk were found by side of
road and petitioner was found sitting on them On search of petitioner nothing incriminating
was found and only a sum of Rs. 200/- was
recovered but on search of bags it was found to
contain Poppy husk - Search of bags would not
amount to search of person of petitioner - Order
acquitting accused on ground that petitioner
ought to have given option to be searched before
Magistrate as required under Section 50 liable to
be set aside.
Unless possession was coupled with
requisite mental element, i.e. conscious
possession and not mere custody without
awareness of the nature of such possession.
Section 15 is not attracted. No question relating
to possession, much less conscious possession
Page 56 of 76
S.15
State of Punjab
Lakhwinder Singh
v.
S.50
State of Punjab
Makhan Chand
v.
S.52A
Page 57 of 76
S.15
S.35
S.54
S.313
Page 58 of 76
Cr. A. No.112/2011
D.O.D.:10.08.2011
Supreme Court
Page 59 of 76
container,
etc.
can,
under
no
circumstances, be treated as body of a
human being. It is not possible to include
these articles within the ambit of the word
"person" occurring in Section 50 of the Act.
Babu Ram
SC
Page 60 of 76
Page 61 of 76
Page 62 of 76
AIR 2010 SC 43
State of Rajasthan v. AIR 2008 SC (Supp) Investigating Officer had produced samples
Udai Lal
1810
Page 63 of 76
Babu Chakraborty
Page 64 of 76
42 has no application.
S.42 Sukhdev Singh v. State of Cri. A No.2118/2008 Secret information was received that the
Haryana
D.O.D.13.12.2012
accused was in the habit of selling chura
Supreme Court
post (poppy husk) in his house. Secret
information was neither reduced in writing
nor communicated to senior officer. There is
patent illegality in the case of the
prosecution and such illegality is incurable.
This is a case of total non-compliance.
S.42 Sunil Kumar Yadav v. Cr. A. No.944/2010 Consequent
to the amendment the
NCB
D.O.D.:18.03.2014
Delhi High Court information which is reduced into writing
can be transmitted to the superior officer at
any time within 72 hours of its receipt.
Meaning thereby that the house could have
been searched before transmitting the said
information to the superior officer.
Discrepancy in the weight of the sample
cannot be sole ground for acquittal of the
accused in a case under NDPS Act.
Page 65 of 76
Cr. A. No.34/2010
D.O.D.:31.01.2014
Delhi High Court
Tassavur v. DRI
of
Cri. A No.300/2009
D.O.D.22.11.2012
Supreme Court
Cr. A. No.599/2012
D.O.D.:18.03.2014
Delhi High Court
Page 66 of 76
Supreme Court
Page 67 of 76
Union of
India
Kuldeep Singh
India
S.37 Union of
Mahaboob Alam
offender merely on the ground that a coaccused has been granted bail. Appellant is
a victim of vengeance, is an argument to be
taken note of while hearing the appeal on
merit, and cannot be an argument for the
purpose of grant of bail.
S.37 Union of India v. Rattan AIR 2009 SC (Supp) Power to grant bail is subject to
Mallik
1567
twin
conditions viz;
(i)
the satisfaction of the Court that
there are reasonable grounds for
believing that the accused is not
guilty of the alleged offence; and
(ii)
that he is not likely to commit any
Page 68 of 76
Page 69 of 76
Page 70 of 76
Page 71 of 76
prosecution.
Held: In the absence of any evidence to
show that the seized contraband was
destroyed as per the prevalent procedure,
the
contraband
should
have
been,
according to the High Court, produced
before the Trial Court. The failure of the
prosecution to do so, therefore, implies a
failure to prove the seizure of the
contraband from the possession of the
respondents.
Chandubha
S.50 Vijaysinh
AIR 2011 SC 77
Jadeja v. State of Gujrat : (2011) 1 SCC 609
Page 72 of 76
Page 73 of 76
of customs
S.50
Page 74 of 76
Cri. A. No.1771/2011
D.O.D.15.01.2013
Supreme Court
Page 75 of 76
Page 76 of 76