Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.20 seconds)Section 67 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Tofan Singh vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 8 October, 2013
17. Even though recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court in TOFAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU reported in 2013(12) SCALE has referred the issue to a larger Bench, in the absence of any authoritative pronouncement by the larger Bench the ratio laid down in KANHAIYALAL case (supra) is still holds good, and the confessional statement of the accused made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is admissible in evidence. In the above circumstances, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has clearly established the conspiracy between the accused to commit the offence. Hence, the findings of the Court below that a further investigation is required in respect of the confessional statement given by the accused to prove the conspiracy is not correct. Hence, it is liable to be set aside.
Section 50 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 53 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 25 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 8 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 378 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Kanhaiyalal vs Union Of India on 9 January, 2008
17. Even though recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court in TOFAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU reported in 2013(12) SCALE has referred the issue to a larger Bench, in the absence of any authoritative pronouncement by the larger Bench the ratio laid down in KANHAIYALAL case (supra) is still holds good, and the confessional statement of the accused made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is admissible in evidence. In the above circumstances, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has clearly established the conspiracy between the accused to commit the offence. Hence, the findings of the Court below that a further investigation is required in respect of the confessional statement given by the accused to prove the conspiracy is not correct. Hence, it is liable to be set aside.