Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.31 seconds)
Mr. Kamal Lama Alias Akal Man Taman vs Union Of India (Uoi) Through Shri M.P. ... on 1 October, 2004
cites
Section 67 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Rajendra And Anr vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 December, 2003
In the case of Rajendra and Anr. v. State of M.P. the Supreme Court has held that the provisions of Section 50 of the Act are not applicable to search of bags and suitcases. In the case at hand the accused was searched at the Customs House at Anjuna and it is in the evidence of the complainant (P. W. 5) as well as P.W. 4 Francisco that the accused was given the option to be searched at the Customs House, Anjuna. Since the accused was searched there and the accused was also given an option in terms of Section 50 of the Act at that place, in my opinion there is substantial compliance with the provisions of Section 50 of the Act. There was no necessity for the complainant to have given the said option contemplated by Section 50 of the Act to the accused at the place where he was caught. Nevertheless It must be observed that there has been no explanation coming forth from the complainant as to why the accused was not at all searched at the place near Starco restaurant and had to be taken to a distance of about 5 to 7 metres to the Customs House at Anjuna, more so because the complainant had prior information and had gone near Starco restaurant all set for the purpose of the raid. In my opinion, there is also no substance in the submission of Shri Kanekar that the offer which was made to the accused had also to be incorporated in the panchanama.
Koyappakalathil Ahamed Koya vs A.S. Menon And Anr. on 3 July, 2002
In the first case of Koyappakalathil (supra) this Court observed that:
State Of Punjab vs Baldev Singh on 21 July, 1999
In this respect, in the case of State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh the Supreme Court has held that it is an obligation of the empowered officer and his duty before conducting the search of the person of a suspect, on the basis of prior information, to inform the suspect that he has the right to require his search being conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate and the failure to so inform the suspect of his right would render the search illegal because the suspect would not be able to avail of the protection which is in built in Section 50. Similarly, if the person concerned requires, on being so informed by the empowered officer or otherwise, that his search be conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, the empowered officer is obliged to do so and failure on his part to do so would cause prejudice to the accused and also render the search illegal and the conviction and sentence of the accused based solely on recovery made during that search bad.
Durgo Bai & Anr vs State Of Punjab on 10 August, 2004
In the case of Durgo Bai and Anr. v. State of Punjab the submission regarding the possibility of tampering was raised but was not considered by the Court because no ground was taken either before the Trial Court or the High Court and no relevant questions were put in cross-examination to cover those aspects.
State Of Rajasthan vs Bhanwar Singh And Ors. [Alongwith ... on 6 May, 2004
In the case of Raj Kumar (supra) this Court observed that:
Prabha Shankar Dubey vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 December, 2003
In the case of Prabha Shankar Dubey v. State of M.P. the Supreme Court has held that there is no specific mode or manner in which the accused is to be informed about his right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate and the Court is required to see the substance and not the form of intimation.
1