Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 87 (2.83 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India vs Shah Alam & Anr on 11 June, 2009

Ncb vs . Teo Kok Siong & Anr. on 6 October, 2012

20.Coming now to the contention with respect to the section 50 of the NDPS Act, the contention of the Ld. Counsel Sh. Mahapatra is that no such notice was served upon the accused persons. In rebuttal to the contention of the Ld. SPP that the same has no relevance because in the present case the recovery for the contraband has taken place from a bag, it is the submission of the Ld Defence Counsel that the issue in this regard is not whether such a notice was required to be served or not but that the issue in the present case is about the credibility of the investigating officials who claim that such a notice was served. Ld. Counsel has pointed out that in the case reported as Union of India vs. Shah Alam & Another 2009 (1) Drug Cases (Narcotics) 390, the facts before the Hon'ble Supreme Court were that the two accused persons were subjected to body search in course of which packets of heroin were found in the shoulder bag carried by them and in such facts also Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the provisions of section 50 should have been complied with and if the same had not been done, it would have a bearing on the credibility of the evidence of the official witnesses.
Delhi District Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bashir Ahmad vs State Of Punjab on 25 March, 2015

In Union of India v. Shah Alam 2009 (3) RCR (criminal) 158 , heroin was first recovered from the bags carried by the respondents therein. Thereafter, their personal search was taken but nothing was recovered from their person. It was urged that since personal search did not lead to any recovery, there was no need to comply with the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. Following Dilip, it was held that since the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act were not complied with, the High Court was right in acquitting the respondents on that ground.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 0 - R S Malik - Full Document

Ncb vs . Chen Ching Sung on 31 May, 2012

Before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi a plea was taken on behalf of the Customs Authorities that since the contraband was recovered from the baggage of the accused, there was no requirement for the compliance of SC 8/2009 Page No. 22 of 32 NCB Vs. Chen Ching Sung Section 50 of the NDPS Act but the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi negated the said contention by placing reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shah Alam's case (Supra). The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in para 23 of its judgment held that since it was not known to the Customs Authorities whether the contraband would be recovered from the person of the accused or from his baggage, it was incumbent upon them to have complied with the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act and if they have failed to do so, the recovery of the contraband in the manner as alleged by the prosecution becomes highly suspect. In the present case also the Panchnama Ex. PW 9/B prepared by the IO Harcharan Singh records that the person and the baggage of the accused were searched after informing him that if he so desires his personal search could be made before a Gazetted Officer. Firstly, this narration in the Panchnama itself shows that the IO has deposed falsely before this Court that the accused was informed that he has a legal right to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer in as much as, as per the Panchnama the accused was only given an option of getting himself searched and that to only before a Gazetted Officer and not before a Magistrate.
Delhi District Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bholaram & Ors vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 7 June, 2017

In Union of India v. Shah Alam[2009 (16) SCC 644], heroin was first recovered from the bags carried by the respondents therein. Thereafter, their personal search was taken but nothing was recovered from their person. It was urged that since personal search did not lead to any recovery, there was no need to comply with the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. Following Dilip, it was held that since the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act were not complied with, the High Court was right in acquitting the respondents on that ground."
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Karunakar Bindhani vs State Of Kerala

recovery, there was no need to comply with the provisions of Sec.50 of the NDPS Act. But by relying on the aforementioned decision in Dileep and another v. State of M.P. reported in 2007 (1) SCC 452, the Apex Court in Shah Alam's case (supra), held that since the provisions of Sec. 50 of the Act were not complied with, the High Court therein was right in acquitting the accused on that ground.
Kerala High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - A Thomas - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next