Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.21 seconds)Section 8 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 18 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 29 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
Kalem Tumba vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 16 September, 1999
In Kalema Tumba v. State of Maharashtra[6], this Court held that
if a person is carrying a bag or some other article with him and narcotic
drug is recovered from it, it cannot be said that it was found from his
person and, therefore, it is not necessary to make an offer for search in
the presence of a gazetted officer or a Magistrate in compliance of Section
50 of the NDPS Act.
State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Pawan Kumar on 8 April, 2005
In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Pawan Kumar[7], three-
Judge Bench of this Court held that a person would mean a human being with
appropriate coverings and clothing and also footwear. A bag, briefcase or
any such article or container etc. can under no circumstances be treated as
a body of a human being. Therefore, it is not possible to include these
articles within the ambit of the word “person” occurring in Section 50 of
the NDPS Act. The question is, therefore, whether Section 50 would be
applicable to this case because opium was recovered only from the bag
carried by respondent No.1 - Parmanand.
Dilip & Anr vs State Of M.P on 24 November, 2006
In Dilip & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh[8], on the basis of
information, search of the person of the accused was conducted. Nothing
was found on their person. But on search of the scooter they were riding,
opium contained in plastic bag was recovered. This Court held that
provisions of Section 50 might not have been required to be complied with
so far as the search of the scooter is concerned, but keeping in view the
fact that the person of the accused was also searched, it was obligatory on
the part of the officers to comply with the said provisions, which was not
done. This Court confirmed the acquittal of the accused.
Paramjit Singh Alias Pamma And Another vs State Of Punjab on 8 September, 2011
In this connection, counsel relied on
judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Paramjit Singh and Anr.
v. State of Punjab[1] and judgment of the Bombay High Court in Dharamveer
Lekhram Sharma and Another v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.[2].
Counsel submitted that search was a farce. The High Court has, therefore,
rightly acquitted the respondents.