Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.21 seconds)Section 69 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
Section 376DB in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav & Anr on 18 January, 2005
(i) The High Court, while exercising its power under Section
439 CrPC, went beyond its jurisdiction by doing a detailed
3 For short ‘CrPC’
Crl.A.No.77/25 Page 5 of 15
examination of evidence and awarding compensation for
alleged wrongful detention. Reliance was placed on Kalyan
Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan4, wherein it was observed
that at the stage of granting bail, a detailed examination of
evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of a case
need not be undertaken.
Thana Singh vs Central Bureau Of Narcotics on 23 January, 2013
(iii) Protection under Section 69 NDPS Act to the authorities
is not absolute. The re-testing of second sample was done due to
malice, as no exceptional circumstances as per Thana Singh
5 (2013) 2 SCC 590
6 (1983) 4 SCC 141
7 (1993) 2 SCC 746
8 (1997) 1 SCC 416
Crl.A.No.77/25 Page 7 of 15
(supra) were present to justify the second examination by a
laboratory.
Rudal Sah vs The State Of Bihar on 6 May, 2022
9. The learned Amicus Curiae in his submissions has
referred to judgments of this Court in Rudal Sah (supra), D.K.
Basu (supra) and Nilabati Behera (supra). As has already been
Crl.A.No.77/25 Page 13 of 15
noticed, these judgments were rendered by this Court under
Article 32 jurisdiction, which is a remedy available to any
person whose fundamental rights have been violated. So,
whereas the Court has indeed held permissibility of grant of
compensation, it has so done in the context of violation of
fundamental rights. The undue restriction of liberty, i.e., without
the backing of procedures established by law is unquestionably
an affront to a person’s rights but the avenues to seek recourse
of law in connection therewith are limited to remedies as per
law. However, none was availed in the present facts.
Smt. Nilabati Behera Alias Lalit Behera ... vs State Of Orissa And Ors on 24 March, 1993
9. The learned Amicus Curiae in his submissions has
referred to judgments of this Court in Rudal Sah (supra), D.K.
Basu (supra) and Nilabati Behera (supra). As has already been
Crl.A.No.77/25 Page 13 of 15
noticed, these judgments were rendered by this Court under
Article 32 jurisdiction, which is a remedy available to any
person whose fundamental rights have been violated. So,
whereas the Court has indeed held permissibility of grant of
compensation, it has so done in the context of violation of
fundamental rights. The undue restriction of liberty, i.e., without
the backing of procedures established by law is unquestionably
an affront to a person’s rights but the avenues to seek recourse
of law in connection therewith are limited to remedies as per
law. However, none was availed in the present facts.