Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.25 seconds)
Nisar Ahmed Bhat vs Union Territory Of Jammu on 4 April, 2024 cites

Jeetu @ Jitendra & Ors. Etc. vs State Of Madhya Pradesh Etc. Etc. on 1 April, 2015

13. The first ground that has been urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the samples of the recovered contraband were not drawn in presence of the Magistrate and even the contraband as well as the samples were not produced during the trial of the case. Therefore, in view of the provisions contained in Section 52A of the NDPS Act, there was no primary evidence before the trial court with regard to seizure and sampling of the contraband substance and in its absence no conviction could have been recorded against the appellant. Reliance in this regard has been placed by learned counsel for the appellant on the judgments delivered by the Supreme Court in the cases of Jitendra and others vs State of Madhya Pradesh, Mangilal v State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 8 Crl A(D) No. 32/2022 549, Yousuf @Asif v State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 890 and Simranjit Singh v State of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 570. In all these cases, the Supreme Court has held that the process of drawing of samples under Section 52 of the NDPS Act has to be in the presence of and under the supervision of the Magistrate and that the entire exercise of collecting the samples must be certified by the Magistrate. It has been further held that without taking recourse to sub section (2) of Section 52A of the NDPS Act, there would be no primary evidence and the same would vitiate the prosecution case.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

Union Of India vs Sohan Lal Sayal on 21 January, 2015

19. Having held that physical production of the contraband and sealed samples before the court will have to be taken into consideration, even if, the contraband and the samples have not been seized and sealed in accordance with the provisions contained in 52A(2) of the NDPS Act and as per the directions of the Supreme Court in Mohan Lal's case (supra), let us now advert to the facts of the present case.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 2 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

Karan Singh vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 27 June, 2023

24. From a perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that an officer vested with powers under the NDPS Act cannot be compelled to disclose his source of information with regard to commission of any offence. Thus, there is a statutory bar to the disclosure of source of information as regards commission of offence under the NDPS Act. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. The ratio laid down by the Delhi High Court in Karan Singh's case (supra) is that secret information would become inadmissible in evidence unless provider of such information is examined in court. It was in those circumstances that the Delhi High Court held that the identity of the person giving secret information has to be disclosed and the said person has to be examined in court. In the present case, respondent-NCB has not placed reliance upon the statement of the person who had given information to PW-1 Kaushal Kumar as such, there was no question of disclosing his identity or examining him in court during the trial of the case. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is without any merit.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - A Oka - Full Document
1