Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (1.05 seconds)Section 21 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
Harjit Singh And Ors. vs State Of Punjab on 16 August, 2002
That
interpretation would bind us. Moreover, that decision has been
subsequently noted in other decisions of this Court in the case of
Harjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab4, Kashmiri Lal Vs. State of
3 (2004) 4 SCC 446
4 (2011) 4 SCC 441
13
Haryana5, State Through Intelligence Officer, and Narcotics
Control Bureau Vs. Mushtaq Ahmad and Others6 - followed or
distinguished.
Kasmiri Lal And Ors vs State Of Punjab on 29 August, 1996
That
interpretation would bind us. Moreover, that decision has been
subsequently noted in other decisions of this Court in the case of
Harjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab4, Kashmiri Lal Vs. State of
3 (2004) 4 SCC 446
4 (2011) 4 SCC 441
13
Haryana5, State Through Intelligence Officer, and Narcotics
Control Bureau Vs. Mushtaq Ahmad and Others6 - followed or
distinguished.
E. Micheal Raj vs Intelligence Officer, Narcotic ... on 11 March, 2008
10. It was possible to examine the wider issues raised by the
respondents upon accepting their argument that the decision in
E. Micheal Raj (supra) is per incuriam. However, in our view,
that decision has interpreted Section 21 of the Act.
Section 76 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 77 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Amar Singh Ramjibhai Barot vs State Of Gujarat on 19 September, 2005
In Amarsingh Ramjibhai Barot vs. State of
Gujarat7, quantity of entire mixture was reckoned and not
limited to the pure drug content therein. Significantly, in none of
these decisions, was the Court called upon to examine the issues
now raised by the respondents. Further, all these decisions are of
two Judges Bench.
Directorate Of Enforcement vs Deepak Mahajan on 31 January, 1994
Reliance is then placed on the decision of this Court in the case
of Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Deepak Mahajan2 to
contend that the Court should not adopt a pedantic approach. In
that, a bare mechanical interpretation of the words and
2 (1994) 3 SCC 440
8
application of the legislative intent devoid of concept of purpose
and object will render the legislation inane. Further, it is
permissible for the courts to have functional approach and look
into the legislative intention and sometimes it may even be
necessary to go behind the words and enactment and take other
factors into consideration to give effect to the legislative intention
and the purpose and spirit of the enactment so that no absurdity
or practical inconvenience may result and the legislative exercise
and its scope and object may not become futile.