Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.33 seconds)Section 18 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Matchumari China Venkatareddy And Ors. vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 19 March, 1993
Following the judgment of Apex Court in Satya Narain
Musadi's case (supra) which has been followed by the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh in Matchumari China's case (supra), and by Calcutta High
Court in Raghubirsaran Jain and another Vs. State and another, 1995
Crl.LJ 4117, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners herein
should have been released, in peculiar circumstances of this case, as
indefeasible right had accrued to them under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. on
presentation of incomplete challan without the report of chemical examiner
and the prosecution agency having not availed the benefit of Section 36 A
(4) of the NDPS Act within a period of 180 days. In a case under the
NDPS Act, a right of bail under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. of an accused can be
defeated by the prosecution agency by availing the remedy under Section 36
A (4) of the NDPS Act subject to the fulfillment of the statutory requirement
of Section 36 A (4) of the NDPS Act which is to be considered in each case
on individual merits by the concerned trial Court/ Special Judge. The right
under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. cannot be defeated by merely filing an
incomplete challan. It is pertinent to observe here that all observations
made in this judgment are in context to the offences under the NDPS Act.
Binder Singh @ Ravinder Singh vs State Of Haryana on 9 September, 2010
This Court in Ravinder @ Binder Vs. State of Haryana, 2015
(4) RCR (Crl.) 441 has granted the default bail under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C.
when the cognizance had been taken by the trial Court without having
obtained report of chemical examiner, observing that a report not
accompanied by chemical examiner report would be a no charge-sheet.
Raghubirsaran Jain And Anr. vs The State And Anr. on 28 June, 1995
Following the judgment of Apex Court in Satya Narain
Musadi's case (supra) which has been followed by the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh in Matchumari China's case (supra), and by Calcutta High
Court in Raghubirsaran Jain and another Vs. State and another, 1995
Crl.LJ 4117, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners herein
should have been released, in peculiar circumstances of this case, as
indefeasible right had accrued to them under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. on
presentation of incomplete challan without the report of chemical examiner
and the prosecution agency having not availed the benefit of Section 36 A
(4) of the NDPS Act within a period of 180 days. In a case under the
NDPS Act, a right of bail under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. of an accused can be
defeated by the prosecution agency by availing the remedy under Section 36
A (4) of the NDPS Act subject to the fulfillment of the statutory requirement
of Section 36 A (4) of the NDPS Act which is to be considered in each case
on individual merits by the concerned trial Court/ Special Judge. The right
under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. cannot be defeated by merely filing an
incomplete challan. It is pertinent to observe here that all observations
made in this judgment are in context to the offences under the NDPS Act.
Sunil Vasantrao Phulbande And Anr. vs State Of Maharashtra on 13 February, 2002
The
Andhra Pradesh High Court in Matchumari China Venkatareddy and
others Vs. State of AP, 1994 Crl.LJ 257, has held that filing of charge sheet
under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. was not complete unless it is accompanied by
the papers contemplated under Section 173 (5) Cr.P.C. The Bombay High
Court in Sunil Vasantrao Phulbande and another Vs. State of
Maharashtra, 2003 (2) RCR (Crl.) 171 has granted benefit of Section 167
(2) Cr.P.C. to accused holding that incomplete charge sheet cannot be
treated as police report at all as contemplated under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C.
The Court has observed as follows:-
Section 12 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 8 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 36 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Satya Narain Musadi And Ors. vs State Of Bihar on 17 September, 1979
Following the judgment of Apex Court in Satya Narain
Musadi's case (supra) which has been followed by the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh in Matchumari China's case (supra), and by Calcutta High
Court in Raghubirsaran Jain and another Vs. State and another, 1995
Crl.LJ 4117, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners herein
should have been released, in peculiar circumstances of this case, as
indefeasible right had accrued to them under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. on
presentation of incomplete challan without the report of chemical examiner
and the prosecution agency having not availed the benefit of Section 36 A
(4) of the NDPS Act within a period of 180 days. In a case under the
NDPS Act, a right of bail under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. of an accused can be
defeated by the prosecution agency by availing the remedy under Section 36
A (4) of the NDPS Act subject to the fulfillment of the statutory requirement
of Section 36 A (4) of the NDPS Act which is to be considered in each case
on individual merits by the concerned trial Court/ Special Judge. The right
under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. cannot be defeated by merely filing an
incomplete challan. It is pertinent to observe here that all observations
made in this judgment are in context to the offences under the NDPS Act.