Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.29 seconds)The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
Dilip & Anr vs State Of M.P on 24 November, 2006
21. Having regard to the judgment by the three-Judge
Bench, which directly dealt with this issue, viz., the
correctness of the view in Dilip (supra) reliance
placed by the appellant on paragraph 16 may not be
available.
Jitendra And Anr vs State Of M.P on 18 September, 2003
24. It is thereafter the Court noted that last but
not the least the narcotic powder was never produced
in the trial court as a material object and again
there was no explanation for its non-production. It
was found that there was no evidence to connect
forensic report with the substance that was seized
18
from the possession of the appellant or the other
accused (see paragraph 12). It was in these
circumstances the Court drew support from the
judgment of this Court in Jitendra (supra). The
appellant has not been able to demonstrate in the
facts of this case any facts which could be likened
to the facts stated in paragraphs 10 and 11. At least
nothing was urged by the learned Counsel for the
appellant on these lines.
Ashok @ Dangra Jaiswal vs State Of M.P on 5 April, 2011
Similarly in Ashok [Ashok v. State of
M.P., (2011) 5 SCC 123 : (2011) 2 SCC
(Cri) 547], the fact that there was no
explanation where the seized substance was
kept (para 11) and the further fact that
there was no evidence to connect the
forensic report with the substance that
was seized, (para 12) were also relied
upon while extending benefit of doubt in
favour of the accused.
The State Of Punjab vs Baldev Singh on 21 July, 1999
We notice
however that the later decision draws inspiration from
the Constitution Bench decision in Baldev Singh
(supra). We also notice that this is not a case where
anything was recovered on the alleged personal search.
The recovery was effected from the bag for which it is
settled law that compliance with Section 50 of the Act
is not required.
Sk. Raju @ Abdul Haque @ Jagga vs The State Of West Bengal on 5 September, 2018
In fact, when it was pointed out by learned
Counsel for the appellant that the aforesaid view has
been disapproved by a Bench of three learned Judges
in the decision in State of Punjab v. Baljinder Singh
and another6, he pointed out that, in fact, a Bench of
three learned Judges has come to rely on the decision
by the Bench of two learned Judges in the judgment in
SK. Raju alias Abdul Haque alias Jagga v. State of
West Bengal7.
State Of U.P vs Heera Lal on 22 January, 2008
In the said case (viz., State v. Heera
Lal), he states, inter alia, as follows:
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Vijay Alias Gyan Chand Jain vs State Of M.P. on 2 September, 1994
25. Next judgment to be noticed is Vijay Jain v.
State of Madhya Pradesh8. The first feature we notice
is that the contention about the contraband not being
produced was raised before the trial court (see
paragraph 5). It was a case where a suitcase was
produced as containing the alleged contraband. In
regard to the suitcase, the evidence of PW11 was
elaborately considered. It was found that the only
evidence before the Court was that in the suitcase
there was only a big pack wrapped in cloth and cloth
was torn and there was blue colour polythene in which
there were clothes. The evidence of PW11 did not
8 (2013) 14 SCC 527
19
reveal any brown sugar being found in the suitcase.
No doubt, the Court referred to two samples being
prepared. Then the Court noted that PW3 has stated
before the court that those samples were not prepared
in his presence. PW2 had stated that the witnesses
were not taken to the site where the materials were
seized.