Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 262 (3.01 seconds)
Documents citing M. Prabhulal vs Assistant Director, Directorate Of ... on 19 September, 2003

Md. Ismail @ Gultania vs State on 30 January, 2004

Learned Public Prosecutor referring to the decision of M. Prabhulal v. Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence submitted that by the same analogy when Section 42 of the said Act was made inapplicable by virtue of the fact that the search and seizure was conducted by the Gazetted Officer himself. Section 50 of the said Act would also become inapplicable in the present fact situation since PW. 4 was himself a Gazetted Officer and the point canvassed by the learned State Defence did not deserve any consideration and he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
Calcutta High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Bhanwar Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 3 July, 2006

56. From the record, I am satisfied that the appellant made a voluntarily confessional statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act before his arrest and after recording the confessional statement of the appellant at 20.15 hours on 8.6.2001 Ex. P/8, the appellant was arrested at 21.05 hours vide Ex. P/9 on 8.6.2001 and therefore, keeping in view the decision of M. Prabhulal v. Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (supra), conviction of the appellant can safely be based on his confessional statement Ex. P/8.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 38 - Cited by 2 - H R Panwar - Full Document

Shri Satyawan Pagi And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 2 March, 2006

In a similar situation, in the case of M. Prabulal v. Assistant Director DRI (supra), the Apex Court took note of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection (Investigation) , that Courts in India and England had consistently refused to exclude the relevant evidence merely on the ground that it is obtained by illegal search or seizure. The Court also noted that though the mahazar was not prepared at the spot but at the office of the Customs Department, it was found that the accused were very much present throughout and there was no allegation or suggestion that the contraband article was, in any way, meddled with by the officers. The position in the present case was also the same and that there were no allegation about meddling with the contraband. Applying the said ratio, in my view, on the facts of this case, it cannot be said there is illegality in the seizure on the contraband only because the actual seizure under panchanama was carried out at the office of the Customs Department, within a few kilometres from the place where the accused were arrested and which place, considering that it is next to the bus stand, would have been otherwise crowded. Lastly, it is contended that there was delay in submitting the sample at the Warehouse. As can be seen from the complainant's letter to the Warehouse Officer, Exhibit 34, the two samples S-1 and S-2, along with the remnant sample (Exhibit A), were received in the Warehouse at 2.45 p.m. on 24-02-2001. It can be seen from the evidence of the complainant that after the statements of the accused were recorded, they were arrested at about past midnight of 23/24-02-2004 and produced before the JMFC, Margao, at 10.00 hours of 24-02-2001 and placed in the Judicial Lock Up at Margao, at 10.30 hours. The complainant had certainly to travel from Margao to Panaji to the Warehouse to deposit the said articles. The complainant stated that the property was kept by him in a different cupboard, of which, both the keys were with him. Considering the time taken from 10.30 a.m. to 2.45 p.m. and further considering that the complainant had to travel from Margao to Panaji, it cannot be said that there was any unnecessary delay in lodging the seized articles in the Warehouse. The complainant was a Gazetted Officer, who as stated by the Supreme Court, certainly requires greater creditability to be given than other officers. As stated by the Supreme Court, a Gazetted Officer has been differently dealt with and more trust has been reposed in him by the provisions of the Act and, therefore, there is no room for any suspicion that the seized articles would have been tampered with from the time they were seized till the time they were deposited in the Warehouse. In fact, it has been stated by the analyst P.W.1/ Kaissare, that the seals fixed on the envelope were intact and tallied with the specimen seal impression sent separately.
Bombay High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Gurminder Singh vs Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence on 27 November, 2006

28. Besides the above said evidence, there is enough evidence produced by the prosecution. The confessional statement made by the appellant puts the prosecution in an impregnable position. It is surprising to note that learned Counsel for the appellant did not advance even a single argument about the confessional statement made by the appellant. The evidence in confessional statement has substance, it can do without frills. There is no need of corroboration. This view finds support in number of authorities reported in M. Prabhulal v. Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, DRI JT 2003 (Suppl.
Delhi High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 5 - J M Malik - Full Document

Narcotic Control Bureau Thro' ... vs Haiderbeg Rahimbeg Mirza on 16 March, 2018

23.23 In case of Yasihey Yobin & Anr. vs. Department of Customs, Shillong, 2014 (13) SCC 344, in which the Apex Court was considering Section 42 of the Act in the backdrop of search made by the Gazetted Officer from the residence of accused no.1 and by considering law laid down in the case of Prabhulal (supra), Satrohan (supra), Abdul Rashid (supra), Balbir Singh (supra), Baldev Singh (supra), it was held that such mandatory compliance of Section 42 is not necessary in a case where Gazetted Officer is a member of searching party.
Gujarat High Court Cites 102 - Cited by 0 - A S Dave - Full Document

Shri Krishnan Sridaran Rajendran @ vs State Rep By on 21 December, 2017

In M.Prabhulal (supra), the Supreme Court has clearly held that an Officer of a Gazetted rank acting under Section 41 of the NDPS Act need not comply with Section 42 of the Act. In this case, the search team was headed by R.Padmanabhan, Senior Intelligence Officer, who is an Officer of Gazetted rank in the DRI under whom P.V.Jayaraman [P.W.1], Chenchuraman [P.W.3], Shyamalnath [P.W.8] and Vijayakumar [P.W.9] went to Rajeshwar Textiles. Just because R.Padmanabhan died prior to the filing of the complaint, it cannot be stated that Section 41 of the NDPS Act would not apply. Had R.Padmanabhan been alive and still, if he had not been examined without adequate reasons, then, the situation may be different. Unfortunately, R. Padmanabhan died on 22.11.2012, to substantiate which Ex.C.1 has been marked and therefore, the prosecution had not included his name in the complaint that was filed on 26.12.2012. Therefore, even if there is infraction of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, the seizure having been effected by the team headed by R.Padmanabhan, a Gazetted Officer, the same will not stand vitiated.
Madras High Court Cites 78 - Cited by 0 - P N Prakash - Full Document

Jagga Singh vs State Of Punjab on 29 May, 2018

9. In the instant case there is no dispute that 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. Such 10 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 11-06-2018 08:48:45 ::: CRA-169-SB-2011 (O&M) 11 being the factual position there was no requirement of the officer conducting the search to record the grounds of his belief as contemplated by the proviso to Section 42. Moreover it cannot be lost sight of that the Superintendent of Police was also a member of the searching party. It has been held by this Court in M. Prabhulal v. Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, (2003) 8 SCC 449 : 2004(1) RCR (Crl.) 160 (SC) that where a search is conducted by a gazetted officer himself acting under Section 41 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, it was not necessary to comply with the requirement of Section 42. For this reason also, in the facts of this case, it was not necessary to comply with the requirement of the proviso to Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Narender Singh Jakhar vs The Narcotics Control Bureau on 30 November, 2015

This position was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in M. Prabhulal v. The Assistant CRL.A. Nos.1370/2010, 349/2011 & 546/2011 Page 38 of 58 Director, DRI, AIR 2003 SC 4311 and in Ram Swaroop v. State, AIR 2013 SC 2068. The appellants - in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., had stated that they have been falsely implicated. However, the appellants failed to show that there was any motivation for their false implication with such a huge quantity of charas. It is also not established through any evidence that the NCB officers had any enmity against the appellants.
Delhi High Court Cites 56 - Cited by 12 - V Sanghi - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next