Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.51 seconds)The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
Section 20 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 Of Himachal Pradesh vs Pawan Kumar on 8 April, 2005
be bound by the decisions rendered by the larger/earlier
Benches of Apex Court in State of H.P. vs. Pawan Kumar,
(2005) 4 SCC 350; State of Rajasthan vs. Ratan Lal,
(2009) 11 SCC 464 and not Shah Alam (supra);
Mohan Lal & Ors vs State Of Himachal Pradesh Throughits ... on 17 March, 1997
11. This Court in Cr.Appeal No.305 of 2014, titled
as Sohan Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, decided on
02.11.2016, with similar facts had an occasion to deal
with the decisions rendered by the Apex Court in Dalip
and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2007) 1 SCC
450; Union of India vs. Shah Alam, (2009) 16 SCC 644
and State of Rajasthan vs. Parmanand and another,
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2018 22:56:23 :::HCHP
7
(2014) 5 SCC 345, the judgments cited on behalf of the
appellants.
Section 374 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Dilip & Anr vs State Of M.P on 24 November, 2006
Parmanand (supra); and Dalip (supra). Hence, in our
considered view, contention that search is illegal or there
has been violation of mandatory provisions of Section 50
of the NDPS Act is untenable in law. Thus trial cannot be
said to be vitiated. Simply because the accused were
also searched after recovery of the contraband
substance, that fact itself would not vitiate the trial, for
no prejudice stands shown by the accused in the search
of their person, in violation of the provisions of Section 50
of the NDPS Act.
Union Of India vs Shah Alam & Anr on 11 June, 2009
be bound by the decisions rendered by the larger/earlier
Benches of Apex Court in State of H.P. vs. Pawan Kumar,
(2005) 4 SCC 350; State of Rajasthan vs. Ratan Lal,
(2009) 11 SCC 464 and not Shah Alam (supra);
State Of Rajasthan vs Parmanand And Anr on 28 February, 2014
Parmanand (supra); and Dalip (supra). Hence, in our
considered view, contention that search is illegal or there
has been violation of mandatory provisions of Section 50
of the NDPS Act is untenable in law. Thus trial cannot be
said to be vitiated. Simply because the accused were
also searched after recovery of the contraband
substance, that fact itself would not vitiate the trial, for
no prejudice stands shown by the accused in the search
of their person, in violation of the provisions of Section 50
of the NDPS Act.