Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.62 seconds)Section 18 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 50 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 51 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 52 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Karnail Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 13 September, 2000
13. The contention of Mr. Singh that Section 55 of the Act, which is a
mandatory provision, was violated is also found to be without merit in
the light of the decision of this Court in Karnail Singh v. State of
Rajasthan [(2000) 7 SCC 632] relied by him in order to buttress his
argument, wherein, a similar contention was raised that after the seizure
the goods were sent to the Superintendent, Central Narcotics Bureau,
Kota, who, as per law, was in charge of a police station but had not
affixed his seal on the articles and the samples, and therefore the whole
of the procedure followed became illegal, entitling the appellant to be
10 of
13
acquitted. In the light of the aforesaid submissions, the Supreme Court
proceeded to hold that with the application of Section 51 read with
Sections 52 and 53, the officer required to affix the seal etc., under
Section 55, would be "the officer in charge of the nearest police station"
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Ouseph Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 23 December, 2004
In the case of Ouseph v. State of Kerala, [(2004) 10 SCC 647] it
was held by this Court that under the provisions of Section 55 of the Act,
the requirement may not be mandatory. However in that case in view of
peculiar facts of the case and as the contraband articles were kept in totally
unsealed condition for near about two months it was held that the same
creates doubt.
State Rep. By Inspector Of Police, ... vs V. Jayapaul on 22 March, 2004
14.As far as the submission that as Inspector Jarnail Singh was the
complainant he should not have been made the investigating officer is
concerned we may make reference to the decision of this Court in State
v. V. Jayapaul, [(2004) 5 SCC 223], wherein it was held as under:
1