Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 29 (0.24 seconds)Section 67 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 29 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 57 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 50 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Rehmatullah Khan vs Narcotic Control Bureau (Ncb) on 18 July, 2008
It was held in the case
Rehmatullah vs. NCB (supra) that section 67 NDPS Act permits the
recording of the statement made by the officers of NCB who are not the
32
police officers. At this stage the person concern is not an accused
although he may be said to be in custody. But on the basis of statement
made by him he could be made an accused subsequently.
Section 20 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 54 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Gaunter Edwin Kircher vs State Of Goa, Secretariat, Panaji, Goa on 16 March, 1993
In the case of Gaunter Edwin Kircher vs. State of Goa
(1993) 3 SCC 145, two pieces of charas one weighing 5 grams and
other 7 grams allegedly were recovered from the possession of the
appellant. Only the piece weighing 5 grams was sent for chemical
analysis. The report of the chemical analysis confirmed that the piece
23
contained charas. In view of failure to send the alleged piece weighing 7
grams for chemical analysis it was held that possession of more than the
small quantity of charas is not established beyond reasonable doubt. It
was held that in the absence of positive proof that both the pieces
recovered from the accused contained charas only, it is not safe to hold
that 12 grams of charas were recovered from the accused. The failure to
send the other piece has given rise to this inference. It was observed
that to obliviate this difficulty, the concerned authorities would do better if
they send the entire quantity seized for chemical analysis so that there
may not be any dispute of this nature regarding the quantity seized. If it
is not practicable, in a given case, to send the entire quantity then
sufficient quantity by way of samples from each of the packets or pieces
recovered should be sent for chemical examination under a regular
panchnama and as per the provisions of law.
State Of Punjab vs Baldev Singh on 21 July, 1999
39. During arguments Ld. counsel referred the case of D.K Basu
vs. state of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416 to contend that if a person
in custody is subjected to interrogation he must be informed in clear and
unequivocal terms as to his right to silence. He also referred the case of
State of Punjab vs. Baldev Singh (1999) 3 SCC 977. In the instant
case when the statements of the accused were recorded, they were not
in custody . They were called in the office in pursuant to the summons
given u/s 67 NDPS Act. Their arrest was made after the statements and
the material collected during investigation. Even otherwise before
recording their statements they were explained the provisions of the act
and the consequences of giving statement. There is enough direct and
circumstantial evidence to show their complicity.