Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.36 seconds)The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 2 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 67 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Maulana Mohd.Amir Rashadi vs State Of U.P.& Anr on 16 January, 2012
In Maulana Mohd Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P., (2012) 3 SCC 382, Hon'ble
Supreme Court holds,
[10] It is not in dispute and highlighted that the second respondent is a
sitting Member of Parliament facing several criminal cases. It is also
not in dispute that most of the cases ended in acquittal for want of
proper witnesses or pending trial. As observed by the High Court,
merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second
respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the
Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has
been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing
away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc.
Union Of India vs Khalil Uddin Etc on 21 October, 2022
In Union of India (NCB) v. Khalil Uddin, decided on 21 Oct 2022, 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 2109, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds,
[4]. According to the prosecution, contraband material weighing
about 13 kgs. of morphine was found in a motor vehicle which was
driven by co-accused named Md. Jakir Hussain. During the course
of investigation, it was found that the motor vehicle was recorded
in the name of Md. Nizam Uddin who had executed a sale letter
and handed over the custody of the vehicle to accused Md. Abdul
Hai and that accused Md. Jakir Hussain was the driver employed
by accused Md. Abdul Hai and that contraband material in
JYOTI SHARMA
2025.10.16 17:39
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
7
CRM-M-41266-2025
question was to be handed over to accused-Khalil Uddin, an owner
of a tea shop.
Tofan Singh vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 October, 2020
[8]. The answer to said question could be the statement recorded of
Md. Nizam Uddin. The statement of Md. Jakir Hussain recorded
under Section 67 of the Act has also named his owner accused
Abdul Hai. We are conscious of the fact that the validity and scope
of such statements under Section 67 has been pronounced upon by
this Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu .