Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.24 seconds)
State vs (I) Mumtaz @ Guria on 31 August, 2012 cites

Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja vs State Of Gujarat on 29 October, 2010

6. From the perusal of the conclusion arrived at by this Court in Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja's case, it appears that the requirement under Section 50 of the NDPS Act is not complied with by merely informing the accused of his option to be searched either in the presence of a gazette officer or before a Magistrate. The requirement continues even after that and it is required that the accused person is actually brought before the gazette officer or the Magistrate and in Para 32, the Constitution Bench made it clear that in order to impart authenticity, transparency and creditworthiness to the entire proceedings, as Endeavour FIR­59/2007 PS­ Narcotics Branch Page 8/16 should be made by the prosecution agency to produce the suspect before the nearest Magistrate.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 555 - D K Jain - Full Document

Parminder Singh vs The State Of Haryana on 23 July, 2010

13. No. explanation has come forward from the side of the prosecution as to why the samples were sent after a gap of 25 days for analysis. S.K. Nagpal, Retired Senior Scientific Officer, FSL, Madhuban PW­2 has stated that on 7.8.2001 five sealed parcels were received in the Laboratory, but the same were returned back due to the reason that the FIR in that case was registered on 12.7.2001, with the objection regarding the delayed deposit of sample parcels. As per this witness, according to the narcotic Control Bureau Instructions, the sealed parcels should be deposited within 72 hours with the Chemical Examiner. He has further stated that two samples were to be taken of the seized contraband as per instructions. The explanation given by DSP Chander Singh PW­6 to this witness was that samples could not be sent earlier due to VVIP duties. Ram Kumar MHC PW­3 brought Rapat Roznamcha from 12.7.2001 to 16.7.2001. During this period, it has been shown that the Police Force was not sent for VVIP duty at anytime. The cross­examination or Ram Kumar MHC PW­3 was deferred by the trial court to enable the witness to produce the Roznamcha from 16.7.2001 to 13.8.2001. This witness was not brought into the witness box by the prosecution. We can safely infer that Ram Kumar PW­3 was not brought again into FIR­59/2007 PS­ Narcotics Branch Page 13/16 the witness­box, as the period from 16.7.2011 to 13.8.2001 did not show any VVIP duty. It is clear that the Investigation Officer Chander Singh DSP PW­6 has only made an excuse, which is not convincing, that the samples could not be sent because of VVIP duty."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 100 - J Chauhan - Full Document
1   2 Next