Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.25 seconds)
Irfan Mohammed Hasan Ansari @ Munna Chor vs The State Of Maharashtra on 14 October, 2022 cites

Sunil Vasantrao Phulbande And Anr. vs State Of Maharashtra on 13 February, 2002

In that case, the view taken in Sunil Fulbande (supra) was not upheld in its entirety, but the facts were that the team of police officers, who had gone to seize the contraband, had a testing kit with it and then the substance that was seized was tested on the field kit. That test was positive and it was taken as prima facie evidence to show that the said substance was a narcotic substance. Here, perusal of the entire charge sheet would show that no such kit was taken along with it by the raiding party. What was seized were the tablets and that too it is under the original names. However, it is also to be noted that the Drugs Inspector Mr. Prashant Brahmankar was accompanying the raiding party and it is said that he had certified that the seized medicine is "Schedule HI prescription drug" and, therefore, it is under the Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substance. It appears that the samples taken have been sent to Government Analyst, Food and Drugs Administration Laboratory but the report has not been submitted. In notification specifying small quantity and commercial quantity in respect of Narcotic Drugs Alprazolam is at Sr.No.178, small quantity is stated to be 5 grams and commercial quantity is said to be 100 grams. Definitely, we cannot collectively quantify the grams of each tablet to arrive at a conclusion whether it is commercial or small quantity. Quantity has to be assessed with each of it. But as on today in spite of filing charge sheet the prosecution has ::: Uploaded on - 14/10/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 15/10/2022 19:36:27 ::: 8 BA_440_2022+1 not produced the C.A. report.
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 30 - D D Sinha - Full Document
1   2 Next