Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.22 seconds)Section 42 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 22 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 100 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 21 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 43 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja vs State Of Gujarat on 29 October, 2010
12. Per contra, Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate
General, Punjab, relied upon a judgment of a Constitution Bench in Vijaysinh
Chandubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat AIR 2011 SC 77, to submit that
whereas the endeavour of the apprehending police party should be to produce
the accused before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, if he is suspected of
being in possession of contraband, however, such non-production (as per
learned Deputy Advocate General) would vitiate his conviction by the trial
4 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 06-08-2017 08:28:31 :::
CRA-S-4481-SB-2016 5
Court only if the recovery of the contraband is made from the person of the
accused during the search.
Section 61 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
State Of Rajasthan vs Parmanand And Anr on 28 February, 2014
Therefore, the contention of learned Deputy Advocate General is
that in the present case, the recovery having been made from the polythene bag
shown to have been thrown away by the appellant at the time of his
apprehension and subsequent arrest, there was no recovery of contraband from
his person, even though a personal search was shown to have been conducted;
and consequently the ratio of the judgment in Parmanands' case would not
apply to the present case.
1