Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 258 (0.82 seconds)
Documents citing Khet Singh vs Union Of India on 20 March, 2002

Anil Kumar Jaiswal And Another vs State Of U.P. on 9 January, 2015

Considering whole facts and circumstances of the case as well as evidence on record, I am of the view that prosecution has fully proved the arrest of accused-appellants on spot along with Ambassdor car having Charas and Ganja in it. Therefore, in view of above pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Khet Singh Vs. Union of India (supra), the preparation of recovery memo in the office of department is not fatal for prosecution case. In this context, it is relevant to mention that after recovery of narcotics drugs in such a huge quantity, the preparation of recovery memo on road appears quite inconvenient.
Allahabad High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Sheikh Rehman Qureshi vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 April, 2026

11. Secondly, when the very same Standing Orders came up for consideration in Khet Singh v. Union of India this Court took the view that they are merely intended to guide the officers 47 to see that a fair procedure is adopted by the officer in charge of the investigation. It was also held that they were not inexorable rules as there could be circumstances in which it may not be possible for the seizing officer to prepare the mahazar at the spot, if it is a chance recovery, where the officer may not have the facility to prepare the seizure mahazar at the spot itself. Hence, we do not find any substance in this contention."
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - R Sinha - Full Document

Vikash Kumar Ray vs Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence ... on 24 March, 2026

11. Secondly, when the very same Standing Orders came up for consideration in Khet Singh v. Union of India this Court took the view that they are merely intended to guide the officers to see that a fair procedure is adopted by the officer in charge of the investigation. It was also held that they were not inexorable rules as there could be circumstances in which it may not be possible for the seizing officer to prepare the mahazar at the spot, if it is a chance recovery, where the officer may not 45 have the facility to prepare the seizure mahazar at the spot itself. Hence, we do not find any substance in this contention."
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - R Sinha - Full Document

Bhausab Madhukar Gore vs Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence on 15 April, 2026

11. Secondly, when the very same Standing Orders came up for consideration in Khet Singh v. Union of India this Court took the view that they are merely intended to guide the officers to see that a fair procedure is adopted by the officer in charge of the investigation. It was also held that they were not inexorable rules as there could be circumstances in which it may not be possible for the seizing officer to prepare the mahazar at the spot, if it is a chance recovery, where the officer may not have the facility to prepare the seizure mahazar at the spot itself. Hence, we do not find any substance in this contention."
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - R Sinha - Full Document

Amar Dubey @ Gogo vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 15 July, 2025

Due to such multitude of possibilities or situations, neither can 26 the police be realistically expected to rigidly adhere to the procedure laid down in Section 52A or its allied Rules / Orders, nor can a strait-jacket formula be applied for insisting compliance of each procedure in a specified timeline to the letter, due to varying situations or requirements of each case. Thus, what is actually required is only a substantial compliance of the procedure laid down under Section 52A of the NDPS Act and the Standing Order(s) / Rules framed thereunder, and any discrepancy or deviation in the same may lead the court to draw an adverse inference against the police as per the facts of each and every case. When it comes to the outcome of trial, it is only after taking a cumulative view of the entire material on record including such discrepancies, that the court should proceed either to convict or acquit the accused. Non- compliance of the procedure envisaged under Section 52A may be fatal only in cases where such non- compliance goes to the heart or root of the matter.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Deendayal Sahu @ Deenu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 28 March, 2025

30. Thus, from above it is clear that the procedure prescribed by the Standing Order(s) / Rules in terms of Section 52A of the NDPS Act is only intended to guide the officers and to ensure that a fair procedure is adopted by the officer- in-charge of the investigation, and as such what is required is substantial compliance of the procedure laid therein. We say so because, due to varying circumstances, there may be situations wherein it may not always be possible to forward the seized contraband immediately for the purpose of sampling. This could be due to various factors, such as the sheer volume of the contraband, the peculiar nature of the place of seizure, or owing to the volatility of the substance so seized that may warrant slow and safe handling. There could be situa- tions where such contraband after being sampled cannot be preserved due to its hazardous nature and must be destroyed forthwith or vice-verse where the nature of the case demands that they are preserved and re- main untouched. Due to such multitude of possibilities or situations, nei- ther can the police be realistically expected to rigidly adhere to the proce- dure laid down in Section 52A or its allied Rules / Orders, nor can a strait- jacket formula be applied for insisting compliance of each procedure in a specified timeline to the letter, due to varying situations or requirements of each case. Thus, what is actually required is only a substantial compli- ance of the procedure laid down under Section 52A of the NDPS Act and the Standing Order(s) / Rules framed thereunder, and any discrepancy or deviation in the same may lead the court to draw an adverse inference against the police as per the facts of each and every case. When it comes to the outcome of trial, it is only after taking a cumulative view of the entire material on record including such discrepancies, that the court should proceed either to convict or acquit the accused. Non- compliance of the procedure envisaged under Section 52A may be fatal only in cases where such non-compliance goes to the heart or root of the matter.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Saiyed Tosif (Tausif) S/O Mahmad ... vs State Of Gujarat on 14 July, 2025

It has been further held that when the similar issue came up for consideration in Khet Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court took the view that Standings Orders are merely intended to guide the officers to see that a fair procedure is adopted by the officer in charge of the investigation. It was also held that they were not inexorable rules as there could be circumstances in which it may not be possible for the seizing officer to prepare the mahazar at the spot, if it is a chance recovery where the officer may not have the facility to prepare the seizure mahazar at the spot itself.' Thus it appears from the aforesaid decision that the Standing Orders or the Executive Instructions issued by the Central Government contain in it the guiding force of carrying out a particular procedure, however, the same does not have the binding force.
Gujarat High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shanker Lal Vaishnav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 August, 2025

30. Thus, from above it is clear that the procedure prescribed by the Standing Order(s) / Rules in terms of Section 52A of the NDPS Act is only intended to guide the officers and to ensure that a fair procedure is adopted by the officer- in-charge of the investigation, and as such what is required is substantial compliance of the procedure laid therein. We say so because, due to varying circumstances, there may be situations wherein it may not always be possible to forward the seized contraband immediately for the purpose of sampling. This could be due to various factors, such as the sheer volume of the contraband, the peculiar nature of the place of seizure, or owing to the volatility of the substance so seized that may warrant slow and safe handling. There could be situations where such contraband after being sampled cannot be preserved due to its hazardous nature and must be destroyed forthwith or vice-verse where the nature of the case demands that they are preserved and remain untouched. Due to such multitude of possibilities or situations, neither can the police be realistically expected to rigidly adhere to the procedure laid down in Section 52A or its allied Rules / Orders, nor can a strait- jacket formula be applied for insisting compliance of each procedure in a specified timeline to the letter, due to varying situations or requirements of each case. Thus, what is actually required is only a substantial compliance of the procedure laid down under Section 52A of the NDPS Act and the Standing Order(s) / Rules framed thereunder, and any discrepancy or deviation in the same may lead the court to draw an adverse inference 31 against the police as per the facts of each and every case. When it comes to the outcome of trial, it is only after taking a cumulative view of the entire material on record including such discrepancies, that the court should proceed either to convict or acquit the accused. Non- compliance of the procedure envisaged under Section 52A may be fatal only in cases where such non- compliance goes to the heart or root of the matter.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next