Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.23 seconds)The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
Section 21 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Prabha Shankar Dubey vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 December, 2003
11. Although considering the conflict of opinion between Balbir Singh's case(Supra) and other cases on one hand and Prabha Shankar Dubey v. State of M.P. 2004 SCC(Cri) 420 (Supra) and other cases, the matter has been referred to a larger Bench of Supreme Court in Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat (2007) 1 SCC(Crl.) 370, but in view of the later decisions of the Supreme Court, I consider that there was sufficient compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act and until the later decisions are reversed, this Court is bound by these decisions of the Supreme Court.
Section 57 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Lalubha Chanubha Jadeja vs The State Of Gujarat & Anr on 6 February, 2006
11. Although considering the conflict of opinion between Balbir Singh's case(Supra) and other cases on one hand and Prabha Shankar Dubey v. State of M.P. 2004 SCC(Cri) 420 (Supra) and other cases, the matter has been referred to a larger Bench of Supreme Court in Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat (2007) 1 SCC(Crl.) 370, but in view of the later decisions of the Supreme Court, I consider that there was sufficient compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act and until the later decisions are reversed, this Court is bound by these decisions of the Supreme Court.
State Of Punjab vs Balbir Singh on 1 March, 1994
10. The argument of counsel for appellant that there was not sufficient compliance with provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS must fail. After Balbir Singh's case (Supra), in Joseph Fernandez v. State of Goa, the Supreme Court held that even when the searching officer informs the accused " if you wish, you may be searched in presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer", it is substantial compliance with the requirements of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The Supreme Court did not agree with the contention that provisions of Section 50 of NDPS Act have not been complied with.
Section 42 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Joseph Fernandez vs State Of Goa on 5 October, 1999
10. The argument of counsel for appellant that there was not sufficient compliance with provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS must fail. After Balbir Singh's case (Supra), in Joseph Fernandez v. State of Goa, the Supreme Court held that even when the searching officer informs the accused " if you wish, you may be searched in presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer", it is substantial compliance with the requirements of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The Supreme Court did not agree with the contention that provisions of Section 50 of NDPS Act have not been complied with.
1