Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.22 seconds)Section 50 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 55 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 15 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Sarjudas & Anr. vs State Of Gujarat on 15 September, 1999
It was held in Sarjudas & Anr. v.
State of Gujarat, (1999) 8 SCC 508 that on plain reading of Section 50 of
the Act it would come into play only in the case of a search of a person as
distinguished from search of any premises etc.
Hardip Singh vs State Of Punjab on 20 August, 2008
In Hardip Singh v. State of Punjab, (2008) 8 SCC 557, 40
days delay in sending the samples of seized opium to Forensic Science
Laboratory was found to have no consequence for the fact that the
recovery of the said sample from possession of the appellant stands
proved and established by cogent and reliable evidence led at the trial. In
that case also statement regarding recovery made by the IO was
corroborated by higher officer of the rank of DSP, who was also examined
at length during the trial. It was found that the said recovery was effected
in the presence of DSP, a senior officer, who also put his seal on the said
parcels of opium. Besides it had also come in evidence that till the date,
the parcels of sample were received by chemical examiner, the seal put on
the said parcels was intact. That itself proves and establishes that there
was no tampering with the aforesaid seal on the sample at any stage and
the sample received by the analyst for chemical examination contained the
same opium which was recovered from possession of the appellant.
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Balbir Kaur vs State Of Punjab on 7 July, 2009
In Balbir Kaur v. State of Punjab, (2009) 15 SCC 795,
appellant a 70 years old lady was detected by the Police party during
patrol duty, sitting on two bags of poppy husk. On seeing the Police party
she turned her face towards village and from the conduct and behaviour of
appellant a suspicion arose that the bags contained some contraband and
she stated that the bags did contain poppy husk and in the meanwhile an
independent witness was joined and then DSP accompanied by lady
constable was also called. The conviction of appellant Balbir Kaur in that
case was upheld. In that case also the independent witness was not
CRA No. 472-DB of 2006 -10-
examined and the conscious possession of appellant was found from her
conduct apart from her own statement at the time of her apprehension.
Section 394 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Karnail Singh vs State Of Haryana on 29 July, 2009
26. We also find that there is no violation of the requirement of
Section 42 of the Act. Firstly because this was not a case of intercepting
the vehicle on any prior information. This was during the routine
Nakabandi for checking of vehicles and bad elements that the Jeep was
intercepted. Secondly a wireless message was sent to the DSP who
reached the spot as testified by PW-4 and PW-5 and this would amount to
giving information to immediate official superior by the IO. The
Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karnail Singh vs. State
of Haryana, (2009) 8 SCC 539 has concluded:-