Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.21 seconds)

Jairamdas vs Regional Transport And Ors. on 30 April, 1957

He also further submitted that in the case of Jairamdas Vs. Regional Transport, AIR 1957 Re. 312, 316, it is held that where a case falls within the plain meaning of a provision of law, its application thereto cannot be denied on any a prior consideration as to the supposed intentions of the legislature. Even otherwise, had it been so that the drug which is nto CR.MA/3912/2010 13/18 ORDER mentioned in the Schedule I of the N.D.P.S. Rules cannot be brought under charges of "Prohibition", then it would nto be possible to seize OPIUM - one of the most abused drug, because it does not place in the Schedule I of the N.D.P.S. Rules. Further, it that be the case, then legislature would not have considered some drugs which are not covered under Schedule-I for "death penalty" for second offence under Section 31-A of the Act. The fact is that such drugs are there in the table shown under Section 31- A. It is further submitted by him that granting of the bail in Mumbai is in another case, where Ephedrine and Methamphetamine were seized from a flat in absence of these accused and has different merit, whereas in the case on hand, all had a joint possession of drug while trafficking the same from Vadodara to Mumbai in Innova Car.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 13 - Cited by 8 - K N Wanchoo - Full Document

The State Of Maharashtra vs Laxmichand Varhomal Chugani on 31 August, 1977

9. He also further submitted that if Methamphetamine is listed in the Drugs and Cosmetics Act/Rules then N.D.P.S. Act will not come into play. Because, primary, idea and essence of the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act is that no sub-standard drug shall be sold in the market and no one will sell CR.MA/3912/2010 14/18 ORDER even a genuine drug without a licence. This is the essence of provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, which is reported in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Laxmichand Varhowal Chugani, reported in 1988 (1) FAC 94, 97(Bom.).
Bombay High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1   2 Next