Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.30 seconds)
Ajay Kumar vs State on 5 October, 2015 cites

Radhey Shyam Aggarwal vs State N.C.T. Delhi on 6 February, 2009

Appeal No. 302/2008 dated 25.04.2011 Radhey Shyam Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) wherein the Bench of this Court had noted that where sincere efforts had not been made by the Investigating Officer to ask members of the public to join the raid inspite of the fact that there were nearby shops, a benefit of doubt had been accorded in favour of the accused. The third argument pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant is based on his submission that there was inordinate delay in sending the samples to the CFSL. The case property was seized on 29.12.2009 and was deposited in the malkhana on the same day but as per the version of the malkhana mohrar (PW-6), the samples were sent to the CFSL for the first time only on 06.01.2010. This delay remains unexplainable. Submission being that as per the instructions of the Narcotic Control Bureau, sealed parcels should be deposited with the chemical examiner within 72 hours and there being no justification for this unexplainable delay, a benefit of doubt on this count also accrues in favour of the appellant. To support this submission reliance has been placed upon a judgment of this Court reported as Crl.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 22 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Rishi Dev @ Onkar Singh vs State (Delhi Admn.) on 1 May, 2008

The CFSL has also reported that at the time the samples were received at their office, the seals on the samples were intact. This was largely attributable to the administrative exigencies. Thus this delay of 9 days in sending the sample by the prosecution to the CFSL cannot in any manner be termed as fatal. The Crl. Appeal No.389/2012 Page 12 of 14 judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant reported as Rishi Dev (supra) on this score is inapplicable; the delay in that case in sending the samples to the CFSL was of 3 months and for which the explanation furnished by the Department was false.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 49 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Thomas Karketta vs State Thr. Narcotics Control Bureau on 1 September, 2015

Appeal No. 1555/2011 dated 01.09.2015 Thomas Karketta Vs. State Through Narcotics Control Bureau. Additional submission being that the notice under Section 50 of the said Act was also not a true compliance of the said provision as the reply of the appellant has been written in Hindi for which there is again no explanation as admittedly the appellant was as educated man and nothing prevented him from writing his answer in the language which he knew, which was the English language. This is also another reason for his acquittal.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 4 - A Kumar - Full Document

E. Micheal Raj vs Intelligence Officer, Narcotic ... on 11 March, 2008

8 Arguments have been heard. Record has been perused. 9 Admittedly the contraband which had been recovered from the appellant was heroin and when weighed it was found to be 270 gms and as per the report of the chemical examiner, the percentage of diacetylmorphine was 1%. This has been discussed in para 21 of the impugned judgment. Reliance by the learned counsel for the appellant on the judgment of Micheal Raj (supra) is however misplaced. Although in this case the Apex Court had discussed the intent of the Legislature in the rationalization of the sentence structure for drug trafficking and the Amending Act of 2001 in that context had been the subject matter of debate for which the entry in the Notification dated 19.10.2001 was the Crl. Appeal No.389/2012 Page 7 of 14 basis of the finding returned that the quantity of 60 gms which was the purity content of the total contraband would fall in the mid bracket. This Court notes that after this judgment which was delivered on 11.03.2009, the Notification of the Ministry of Finance dated 18.11.2009 was gazetted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 312 - P P Naolekar - Full Document
1