Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 28 (0.15 seconds)Section 50 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 57 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
State, Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi vs Sunil And Another on 29 November, 2000
This position
was reaffirmed by the Apex Court in State, Govt.
of NCT of Delhi v. Sunil and Another, (2001) 1
SCC 652, wherein it was held that :
Tahir vs State (Delhi) on 21 March, 1996
71. Moreover, recovery in the present case was
effected at about 05.30 a.m. in early morning hours
and the public witnesses were not easily available at
that time and circumstances would have been
Sessions Case No. 975/18 State Vs. Gayapal & Ors. Page No.60/72
different, if recovery was effected in day light or
evening because at that time, there is possibility of
easy availability of public witnesses. It is not
uncommon that public persons are reluctant to join
as witnesses in criminal cases as they do not want to
indulge in hectic police and court proceedings. The
non joining of public witnesses is not fatal to the case
as otherwise the case is proved by way of consistent
and cogent evidence. On examination the facts of
the case as well as evidence of prosecution witnesses
and the documents, this court is of the opinion that
there is no reason to discredit the convincing
testimony of prosecution witnesses. This is also
fortified by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court titled Tahir Vs. State 1996 (3) SCC 338.
Para 6 of this judgment reads as under:-
Sk. Raju @ Abdul Haque @ Jagga vs The State Of West Bengal on 5 September, 2018
Even otherwise, Ld.
APP for the State has relied upon judgment titled as
S. K. Raju @ Abdul Haque @ Jagga Vs. State of
West Bengal having Criminal Appeal No. 459 of
2017 dated 05.09.2018 where Hon'ble Mr.
Justice J. Dhananjay Y Chandrachud of Hon'ble
Supreme Court has upheld the conviction in a case
where recovery was made not in person of accused
but from the bag and section 50 of NDPS Act was
found to be not applicable and certain interpretation
was carried out.
The State Of Punjab vs Baljinder Singh on 15 October, 2019
Reliance is placed upon latest
judgment titled as State of Punjab Vs. Baljinder
Singh passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of
Sessions Case No. 975/18 State Vs. Gayapal & Ors. Page No.56/72
India dated 15.10.2019 whereby Hon'ble Court has
held that "As regards applicability of the
requirements under Section 50 of the Act are
concerned, it is well settled that the mandate
of Section 50 of the Act is confined to
"personal search" and not to search of a
vehicle or a container or premises."
Shri D.K. Basu,Ashok K. Johri vs State Of West Bengal,State Of U.P on 18 December, 1996
61. The Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that
the notice U/s 50 NDPS Act was defective as the
accused were not explained about their legal right to
be searched before a Gazetted officer or Magistrate.
But Ld. APP for the state has argued that notices U/s
50 of NDPS Act Ex. PW-3/A, PW-3/B and PW-3/C were
served upon the accused whereby they were
apprised about their legal rights. During the
arguments Ld. Counsel for the accused referred the
case of D. K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal
(1997) 1 SCC 416 to contend that if a person in
custody is subjected to interrogation, he must be
informed in clear and unequivocal terms as to his
right to silence.
Parveen Singh @ Kalia vs State Of N.C.T. Of Delhi on 11 November, 2010
The counsel for accused have
relied upon judgment titled as Parveen Singh @
Kalia Vs. State of NCT of Delhi 2011 (1) JCC
(Narcotics) 1 wherein the Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi has held as under:-
Arif Khan @ Agha Khan vs The State Of Uttarakhand on 27 April, 2018
In
Sessions Case No. 975/18 State Vs. Gayapal & Ors. Page No.55/72
these circumstances, the judgment titled as Arif
Khan @ Agha Khan Vs. State of Uttarakhand,
having CA No. 273/07 decided by Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India and Dharambir Vs.
State having CRL. A. 658/17, decided by
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi are not applicable to
the facts of the present case.