Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.30 seconds)
Yerragudi Suryanarayana Reddy vs The Senior Intelligence Officer ... on 12 June, 2017 cites

Rafael Palafox Garcia vs The Union Of India on 25 September, 2008

In support of that submission the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in Rafael Palafox Garcia vs. Union of India and Another 2009 KHC 5335. In that case 290 Kg of Pseudo Ephedrine, which is a controlled substance was seized. It was held that the concept of 'commercial quantity' does not apply to 'controlled substances' as per section 37(1)(b) of the Act. As has been said earlier, section 37(1)(b) itself is clear that it applies only to offences under Sections 19, 24, 27A and offences involving 'commercial quantity'. The concept of commercial quantity is alien to 'controlled substances' Therefore, there can be no doubt that section 37(1)(b) is not applicable to the facts of this case.
Bombay High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 23 - V Tehsilramani - Full Document

Bipin Shantilal Panchal vs State Of Gujarat And Anr on 22 February, 2001

15) Before parting, it should be mentioned that the petitioner claimed bail as an indefeasible right under Sec.167(2) Cr.P.C. His submission is that in respect of the offences under Sec.25, 25(A), 28 and 29 of the NDPS Act, the prosecution agency had to file complaint on completion of investigation within 60 days but they failed to do so and hence in terms of Sec.36(A)(4) of the NDPS Act and Sec.167(2) of Cr.P.C, he deserves bail. I am afraid, this argument is not correct. It is true that since the offence under Sec.25(A) of the Act is punishable with imprisonment which may extend up to 10 years and other offences toe the line of Sec.25(A) of the Act, the prosecution needs to file complaint on completion of investigation within 60 days from the date of remand of the accused in terms of Sec.167(2) Cr.P.C. It is also true that the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 31.07.2016 but the complaint was filed by DRI on 07.11.2016 i.e, beyond the period of 60 days and thereby the indefeasible right to claim bail was accrued to petitioner/accused immediately after the expiry of the 60 days. However, the crucial question is whether the petitioner availed such right before the complaint was filed on 07.11.2016. The trite law expounded by Honble Apex Court is that when once the accused failed to avail the indefeasible right accrued to him under Sec.167(2) Cr.P.C on failure of the prosecution agency to file charge sheet on the appointed day and subsequently when the charge sheet was filed though belatedly, the accused cannot claim such indefeasible right. The Apex Court in the case of Dr.Bipin Shantilal Panchal vs. State of Gujarat , answered the question whether the accused who was entitled to be released on bail under proviso to sub-Section(2) of Sec.167 of the Code, not having made an application when such right had accrued, can exercise that right at a later stage of the proceeding.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 535 - Full Document

Sanjay Dutt vs State Of Maharashtra Tr.Cbi,Bombay on 21 March, 2013

Referring its earlier judgment in Sanjay Dutt vs. State through CBI , it held that if an accused person fails to exercise his right to be released on bail for the failure of the prosecution to file the charge sheet within the maximum time allowed by law, he cannot contend that he had an indefeasible right to exercise at any time notwithstanding the fact that in the meantime charge sheet is filed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 88 - Cited by 365 - P Sathasivam - Full Document
1