Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.32 seconds)Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja vs State Of Gujarat on 29 October, 2010
24. We do not agree to this finding of the two courts below
as, in our opinion, a search and recovery made from the
appellant of the alleged contraband "charas" does not
satisfy the mandatory requirements of Section 50 as held by
this Court in Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja [Vijaysinh
Chandubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 1 SCC 609 :
The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
Arif Khan @ Agha Khan vs The State Of Uttarakhand on 27 April, 2018
5. It is no more res integra that compliance of Section 50 of
N.D.P.S. Act is mandatory. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Arif Khan @ Agha Khan v. State of Uttarakhand, reported in
(2018) 18 SCC 380 has held the same. The relevant part of the said
judgment is reproduced for the purpose of appreciation of
proposition of law in regard to the same:-
State Of Punjab vs Baldev Singh on 21 July, 1999
"18. What is the true scope and object of Section 50 of the
NDPS Act, what are the duties, obligation and the powers
conferred on the authorities under Section 50 and whether
the compliance of requirements of Section 50 are
mandatory or directory, remain no more res integra and
are now settled by the two decisions of the Constitution
Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Baldev
Singh [State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, (1999) 6 SCC 172 :
Ashok Kumar Sharma And Others vs Ashok Kumar Sharma And Others on 15 December, 2021
(See also Ashok Kumar
Sharma v. State of Rajasthan [Ashok Kumar
Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, (2013) 2 SCC 67 : (2013) 1
SCC (Cri) 829] and Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sukh Dev
Raj Sodhi [Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sukh Dev Raj
Sodhi, (2011) 6 SCC 392 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 981] .)
1