Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.31 seconds)Section 57 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 4 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 18 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Ravindran @ John vs The Superintendent Of Customs on 14 May, 2007
11. In the instant case, Section 42 of the NDPS Act would not be attracted, because respondent was apprehended outside the house by the police. The search of the house was not taken. It was a public place, for which Section 43 of the Act will apply, which does not require the information of any person to be taken out in writing. Section 43 of the Act is meant for seizure and arrest of the accused in public place. Section 42 of the Act is applicable to a case where the concerned officer on information received or having reason to believe from personal knowledge that any offence has been committed in relation to any drug or psychotropic substance etc. and which is kept or concealed in any building conveyance or enclosed place may between sun rise and sun set and searched the building conveyance or places. This aspect has dealt with in detail by Supreme Court in case of Ravindran alias John v. Superintendent of Custom . In paragraphs 5 & 6, the learned Trial Court, in the impugned judgment has not at all discussed the evidence for attracting Section 42 of the Act and in paragraph 13, the Court has given flying remark that mandatory provision of Section 42 of the Act has not been complied with by the prosecution. This is a clear perversity in the impugned judgment. The learned trial Court, before holding non-compliance of Section 42 of the Act, should have dealt with the evidence adduced by the prosecution.
State Of Punjab vs Balbir Singh on 1 March, 1994
This has also been held in the celebrated leading judgment passed in case of State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh . In the instant case, (P.W. 3) Karesingh, Reader to Additional S.P. Mandsaur has proved receipt of information Exhibit-P/14 from Police Out-Post, Daloda and he placed the same before Addl. S.P. Mandsaur. He also proved receipt of memorandum Exhibit-P/3 as well as intimation regarding seizure of opium Exhibit-P/15 and same was placed by him before Addl. S.P. Mandasaur. The learned trial Court, in paragraph 13 has given incorrect finding contrary to the statement of this witness (P.W. 3) Karesingh that "In fact, prosecution has failed to prove that such report Exhibit-P/3, P/13 & P/14 were really placed for the information and knowledge before the senior police officials". (P.W. 3) Karesingh has specifically stated in paragraph-1 & 4 as well as paragraph-8 of cross-examination that he placed all the documents vide Exhibit-P/14, P/3 & P/15 for perusal before Addl. S.P. Mandsaur. This is sufficient compliance of Section 57 of the Act and the appellant is not entitled for getting any benefit. (P.W. 12) Investigating Officer Vijay Choudhari has specifically stated that copy of secret information and copy of memorandum for not obtaining search warrant were sent to Addl. S.P. Mandsaur through constable Ravi Shankar-Number 503. Both the documents are Exhibit-P/14 & P/3. He has also stated in paragraph 17 that through document Exhibit-P/15, he had sent intimation of registration of the crime to Addl. S.P. Mandsaur.
Section 43 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
Khalek Shaikh vs State Of West Bengal on 31 August, 2006
In the case of Khalek Sheikh (supra) there was non-examination of independent witnesses in Court, whereas in the instant case, independent witnesses were examined and they turned hostile though admitted their signatures on the relevant documents. (P.W. 2) Prahlad, Panch witness has admitted that he was not threatened by the police for signing on the documents. (P.W. 4) Manohar Soni also denied the proceeding, but admitted his signature on the documents and stated that he had signed on the blank papers knowing well that signature should not be done on blank papers. He also admitted that he was not threatened by the police for signing on the blank papers. On going through the statement of both the panch witnesses, this Court is of the considered view that the panch witnesses, who went along with police party and admitted their signatures on all the documents, have deliberately turned hostile to the prosecution in support of the respondent.