This Court, in the case of Lambodar Bag (supra) after taking into consideration the principles decided in the case of Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, reported in A.I.R. 3. NDPS Act: All India High Court Cases 2022, We use cookies for analytics, advertising and to improve our site. The Andhra Pradesh High Court granted bail to a man accused of possessing 6 Kgs of Ganja, observing that the same is not a "commercial quantity" and thus the case for grant of bail will not be governed under Section 37 of NDPS Act. The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently granted regular bail to an accused under Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, noting that the rigours of bail stipulated under Section 37 thereof do not apply in case the recovery is not of commercial quantity contraband. 46. 2. 21. The Bench comprising Justice SH Vora remarkedthat her conscious possession as understood under the law does not surface evena reasonable doubt. Possession Of 16 Kg Ganja Does Not Attract The Bar Under Section 37 Of NDPS: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail To Accused, Case Title: Nandurkar Satish Dowlathrao V. State Rep By The Public Prosecutor. While granting bail to an accused under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the Himachal Pradesh High Court said that it is highly unbelievable that the persons carrying a commercial quantity of contraband would keep documents relating to their identity in the same bag. "As per the provisions of the NDPS Act, the investigation has to be completed within 180 days from the date of arrest of the accused. The Andhra Pradesh High Court observed that mere non-mentioning of exact quantity of ganja in FIR will not render prosecution's case meritless, if the amount obtained from the accused is a commercial quantity. Being familiar with these common college search scenarios might inform students how to respond in similar situations. The Bombay High Court at Goa held that the combined weight of Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD) drug and the blotting paper carrying it is necessary to ascertain if the seized drug is of a small or commercial quantity and impose punishment under the NDPS Act accordingly. In this backdrop, acceptance of the offer by the appellants to be searched before an officer who is a member of the raiding party cannot be said to be a voluntary expression of their desire to be searched before such officer. The High Court dismissed the appeal of the Appellant-Authorities and confirmed the order of the acquittal by the lowerCourt on the grounds that the Respondent-Accused was not made aware of his right for being searched before the Magistrate, thereby breaching Section 50 of the NDPS Act. "The term "conscious possession" is not capable of precise and complete logical definition of universal application in the context of all the statute and the knowledge of possession of contraband has to be ascertained from the fact and circumstances of the case," Justice Sanjay Dhar observed. by . An officer who wants to search will typically need either permission or a warrant. 81. Therefore, it is as a preparation, mixture, or neutral substance within the meaning of the NDPS Act. A Single Judge Bench of Justice Bibhu Prasad Routray held, "It is the settled law that right guaranteed under Section 167(2) to the accused is indefeasible. Rafael Gonzalez, Esq., Cattie & Gonzalez, PLLC On June 10, 2022, the United States Supreme Court published its decision on Gallardo v. "The applicant is in the business of fertilizers and hence the use of word 'Khad' is neither unusual nor strange. Section 37 of the NDPS Act mandates a more stricter approach than an application for bail sans the NDPS Act. Most of the cases registered under the N.D.P.S. reasonable ground for believing that the accused is not guilty of such an offence and that the accused would not commit an offence or is not likely to commit an offence, if granted bail. Holding the drug to be a "controlled substance", Justice Bhatnagar held that the bar of Section 37 is not applicable in this case. After careful scrutiny of section 37 of the NDPS Act 1985 we find that the exercise of power to grant bail is not only subject to the limitations contained in section 439 Cr.P.C, but is also subject to the limitations placed by section 37 which commences with non-obstante clause", the Court underscored further. 4. 14. Therefore, it was held that it is not possible for the Court to direct that the powers exercisable by the Magistrate under Section 52-A could be exercised by the Special Judge under Section 36. The court passed the order on a reference by a single judge on whether LSD alone or the combined weight of LSD and blotting paper would be used to determine the weight the seized drug. Prosecution in such cases primarily relies on the evidence of official witnesses particularly seizing officers to prove lawful recovery of contraband. The next morning she could not reach her husband by phone and called the police to ask them to check in on her husbands welfare. 41. 19. Audi alteram partem or hear the other side is one of the fundamental pillars of the principles of natural justice. NDPS Offences Part Of An Organized Crime, Recovery Of Substance Not Necessary For Conviction: Gauhati High Court, Case Title: AMAL DAS v THE STATE OF ASSAM. Calcutta HC Denies Anticipatory Bail To NDPS Accused Citing Phone Connection With Person Arrested With Commercial Quantity Contraband, Case Title: In the matter of: Bapi Sk @ Bapi Sekh. Caniglia later sued and said that when police entered his home to seize his weapon they violated the Fourth Amendment because they had no warrant. S. 37 NDPS Act | Regular Bail For Possession Of 'Ganja' Can Be Granted If It Is Not Of Commercial Quantity: Andhra Pradesh High Court, Case Title: BIKKA PARVATHI Versus STATE REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. [CRIMINAL MISC. ", 63. In most cases as in the present case, independent witnesses are either not examined or turn hostile. The development ensued in a State-appeal, preferred againstthe order of Special Judge, acquitting the Accused No. The Delhi High Court on Friday observed that if the contraband seized falls within the provisions of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the weight of the neutral substance would not be ignored while determining the nature of the quantity seized, whether small quantity, commercial quantity or in between. Tuesday, August 10, 2021. A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra relied upon Iswar Tiwari v. State of Odisha, 2020 (80) OCR 289, wherein the legal position as regards the provisions under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C read with Section 36(A)(4) of the NDPS Act, was elaborately discussed by the Orissa High Court and it was held that the notice must mandatorily be issued to the accused and he must be produced before the Court whenever such an application is taken up and that where any such report occurs the question of it being contested does not arise and a right accrues in favour of the accused. recent illegal search and seizure cases 2022kentucky probate forms inventory. The provision stipulates that if it is not possible to complete the investigation within 180 days, the Special Court may extend the said period up to one year on the report of the Public Prosecutor indicating the progress of the investigation and the specific reasons for detention beyond 180 days. 54. 70. However, the record reveals that the prosecution has filed an application for extension of period for completion of investigation under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act well in advance before expiry of 180 days i.e. florida city gas installation. 71. Northern District of California. Evidence Of Public Officer Can't Be Disbelieved Merely Because He Is A Police Officer: Allahabad High Court Denies Bail In NDPS Case, Case Title: Shankar Varik @ Vikram v. Union of India. 17. He alleged that the procedure adopted for collection of samples in the case was faulty and in violation of the guidelines issued by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB). The answer is in affirmative in favour of the accused for his enlargement on bail for non-completion of investigation within the prescribed period of 180 days on different contingencies relating to extension of such period. The Delhi High Court has observed that the object of default bail is inherently linked to Article 21 of the Constitution of India, laying emphasis on safeguarding the life and personal liberty of the accused against arbitrary detention. Granting bail to a man in a case registered under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, the Delhi High Court has said that the rigours of Section 37 of the enactment will not be applicable in cases where collection of contraband sample itself was faulty. ", "This is an egregious violation of an accused's right to personal liberty and right to speedy trial as, in the off-chance that the Petitioner is acquitted, it would entail an irretrievable loss of eight years of his life that cannot be compensated. Highly Unbelievable One Would Keep Identity Proof In Bag Along With Contraband: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail To NDPS Accused, Case Title: Ankit Ashok Nisar & Ors v. State of Himachal Pradesh. Public Prosecutor Must File Independent Report Justifying Detention Of Accused Beyond 180 Days U/S 36A(4) NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana HC, Case: Joginder Singh S/o Jai Singh v. the State of Haryana. CNN Sans & 2016 Cable News Network. The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently denied regular bail to an accused involved in a case registered in the year 2020 under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, over recovery of 120 grams heroin along with drug money. The Delhi High Court has said that the question whether non-compliance of Section 41 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 in the process of arrest, search and seizure vitiates the trial is to be seen at the stage of trial and cannot have any bearing on grant of bail. The court further said since the "fountainhead of the recovery" itself is missing, "I am of the view that no reliance can be placed on the recovery made from the applicant". Case Title: ZAKIR HUSSAIN v STATE BY INTELLIGENCE OFFICER. The remarks were made while granting bail to an accused under the Narcotics, Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, languishing in jail for more than four years. 67. The court made the observation while granting bail to Pratap Singh, who was in custody in the case since March 09 last year. 12. The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has observed that the Courts cannot make a declaration that a particular drug is a 'manufactured drug' or a 'psychotropic substance' under the NDPS Act. Civil Rights, Criminal Law Related Civil Cases, Diversity, Search and Seizure. Two Years After Nigerian's Arrest In NDPS Case Chemical Analyzer Admits "Mistake" In FSL Report, Says No Illicit Drugs Recovered, Case Title: Novafor Samuel Inoamaobi v. The State of Maharashtra. The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently held that on account of delay in the conclusion of trial, rigors of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act can be relaxed to an extent and prayer of the accused for bail can be considered despite that she was found in possession of a commercial quantity of contraband. The Delhi High Court has granted bail to a man incarcerated for almost 8 years in connection with a case registered under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, on account of inordinate delay in his trial and prolonged judicial custody. The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that the expression "possession" used in the provisions contained in Section 20 and 22 of the NDPS Act clearly specify that the standard of conscious possession would be different in case of public transport as opposed to a private vehicle with few persons known to one another. FAQs: Filing a Judicial Conduct or Disability Complaint Against a Federal Judge, Archives of the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability, Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation Fees, Federal Court Interpreter Certification Examination, National Court Interpreter Database (NCID) Gateway, Transfer of Excess Judiciary Personal Property, Electronic Public Access Public User Group, Statistical Tables for the Federal Judiciary, Asset Management Planning Process Handbook, Judiciary Conferences That Cost More Than $100,000, Long Range Plan for Information Technology, Proposed Amendments Published for Public Comment, Laws and Procedures Governing the Work of the Rules Committees, How to Suggest a Change to Federal Court Rules and Forms, How to Submit Input on a Pending Proposal, Open Meetings and Hearings of the Rules Committee, Permitted Changes to Official Bankruptcy Forms, Congressional and Supreme Court Rules Packages, Preliminary Drafts of Proposed Rule Amendments, Confidentiality Regulations for Pretrial Services Information, United States of America v. City of Seattle, Rhodes, et al v. Lauderdale County, et al, Civil Rights, Criminal Law Related Civil Cases, Diversity, Search and Seizure, Civil Rights, Criminal Law Related Civil Cases, Search and Seizure, Motion for Summary Judgment, Motion to Dismiss, Motion for Summary Judgment, Motion to Dismiss, Status Conference. The Kerala High Court has reiterated that the request of an investigating officer seeking extension of statutory 180 days period is not a substitute for the report of public prosecutor as envisaged under Section 36A of the NDPS Act. Therefore, recovery or seizure cannot be held to be a sine qua non for the arrest/detention or even for conviction if there are other convincing and corroborating materials which in the present case are abundantly available. Shabbar Rashidi said that the call detail recording show the nexus of accused with a person arrested with commercial quantity contraband. To put it differently, temple premises being accessible to the public at large, it cannot be said that said premises were in exclusive possession and control of the applicant", the court said in its order. However, many people, especially young college students, do not know about those rights and may unknowingly be the victims of unlawful drug searches. Justice A. Badharudeen remarked, that it is relevant, rather shocking to note that the Public Prosecutor who was appointed by the State to conduct serious cases of this nature, even not cared at least to read Section 36-A(4) and its proviso, before filing the report of the Investigating Officer pressing for extension of detention of the accused beyond the period of 180 days Indubitably, it is held that, the report/petition filed by the Investigating Officer cannot be considered as a report/petition envisaged under Section 36-A(4), since the Investigating Officer has no such right. In this case, the Petitioner was the source person for Pseudoephedrine drug for a business chain operating in Punjab, Haryana, and Delhi. The High Court noted that till date, out of a total of 14 witnesses only two witnesses have been examined, and as such there is no probability of the trial being concluded in the near future. Since the case was instituted under the NDPS Act, the court also recorded satisfaction regarding twin conditions for bail under Section 37 of the Act. Delhi High Court Clarifies Controlled Substances Are Not Affected By The Bar To Bail Under Section 37 Of The NDPS Act, Case Name: TINIMO EFERE WOWO Vs THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI. Evidence Of Public Officer Can't Be Disbelieved Merely Because He Is A Police Officer: Allahabad High Court Denies Bail In NDPS CaseCase Title: Shankar Varik @ Vikram v. Union LiveLaw reported almost 7,000 orders and judgments in 2022 from various High Courts across the country. 11. The Karnataka High Court has held that an accused charged under the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) Act does not get aright to default bail under Section 167(2) of CrPC, merely because the chargesheet/ final report filed by the Police after investigation is without FSL report. 35. LiveLaw reported almost 7,000 orders and judgments in 2022 from various High Courts across the country. . P. C, it becomes clear that if an accused has been detained in connection with investigation of a case for a period of more than 180 days in an offence under NDPS Act, he is entitled to be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail unless the Special Court has extended the period of detention during investigation of the case beyond 180 days, recorded Justice Sanjay Dhar. Justice Sanjay Dwivedi was essentially dealing with the bail applications moved by the Applicants accused U/S 8/20, 25, 27(a)/28 R/W Section 29 NDPS Act. 'Temple From Which Ganja Was Recovered Was Not In His Exclusive Possession': Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Priest In NDPS Case, Case Title: Shantaram B. Dhoble v. State of Maharashtra. NDPS Act | 'Spot' Means Place Where Search Is Conducted & Recovery Is Made, Not Where Suspected Vehicle Or Person Is Intercepted: Madhya Pradesh HC, Case Title: Kamruddin v. Union of India, with connected matters. The Gauhati High Court recently denied anticipatory bail to a person in connection with a case registered under Section 21(c) / 29 of NDPS Act, 1985 holding that recovery or seizure of the contraband is not mandatory for their arrest, detention or even their conviction. 1994 SC 2623 and various other decisions, have answered on five points relating to release of an accused in terms of Section 36-A(4) of the N.D.P.S. NDPS Act | Possession Not Proved Merely By Sitting In Vehicle From Which Contraband Is Seized: Orissa High Court, Case Title: Kishore Bira v. State of Odisha. 59. NDPS ACT | Minor Discrepancy In Sample's Weight Sent To Forensic Lab Can't Shake Roots Of Prosecution's Case: Allahabad High Court, Case title - Chhotey Lal v. U.O.I. [NDPS Act] "Sampling Not Done As Per 1989 Standing Order In Seizure Of 201 KG Ganja": Allahabad High Court Grants Bail, Case title - Wali Hassan v. State of U.P. "Evidence of a public officer cannot be thrown only on the ground that he is a police officer," the High Court held while denying bail to an accused allegedly involved in a case pertaining to recover of 1,025 kg ganja. S.50 NDPS Act | Personal Search Conducted In Presence Of ACP Not Bad Merely Because He Belongs To Police Dept: Karnataka High Court, Case Title: Joswin Lobo v. State of Karnataka Case No: Criminal Petition No.6916/2021, The Karnataka High Court has said there is no bar on a police officer, who is a gazetted officer, on carrying out a personal search to draw a mahazar, on an accused/ suspect under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Interim Custody Of Conveyance/Vehicle Seized Under NDPS Act Can Be Granted U/S 451 & 457 CrPC: Allahabad High Court, Case title - Rajdhari Yadav v. State of U.P. 2. The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently held that with respect to search and seizure in cases under the NDPS Act, 'spot' does not mean a place where suspected vehicle or person is intercepted, but a place where search is conducted and recovery of articles is made. [NDPS Act] Accused Claims Standing Order Not Followed In Seizure Of Over 1 Quintal Of Ganja, Allahabad High Court Grants Bail. 18 and 25 of NDPS Act. 53. Mohapatra held that the legislative intent is clear and in the light of interpretation of Section 52-A(2) to (4) by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Makhan Chand, (2004) 3 SCC 453; Noor Aga v. State of Punjab, (2008) 16 SCC 417; Union of India v. Jarooparam, (2018) 4 SCC 334, there is no scope for invoking 'mischief rule' to read the word 'Magistrate' in the above provision as 'Special Court'. Justice Sandeep Shinde while dealing with the bail application observed that prima facie, the temple was not in exclusive possession of the priest. Punjab & Haryana HC Shocked At Failure Of Cops To Depose In NDPS Case Despite Repeated Warrants, Grants Bail To Accused, Case Title: Sukhwinder Singh v. State of Punjab. Justice SH Vora observed that though the senior citizen was not at the scene of offence or in the nearby vicinity, however, since he was the property owner, Section 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is attracted to the case. NDPS Act | Violation Of Standing Orders During Contraband Sampling Leads To Adverse Inference Against Prosecution: Telangana High Court, Case Title: Baba Sow Chandekar & another v. The State of Telangana. Act revolve around recovery of narcotic substance from the accused. Justice Jasmeet Singh further observed that non-compliance of Section 41 of the enactment will not absolve the accused from the rigours of Section 37, which imposes strict conditions on grant of bail. Compliance with the principles of natural justice ensures a fair trial. No Bar On Granting Interim Custody Of The Vehicle Seized For Commission Of Offence Under NDPS Act: MP High Court, Case title - SURENDRA DHAKAD Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH. Drugs Controls Act, 1949 on the ground that cases of drug abuse are on the rise, which is adversely affecting the young generation. It also appears that neither such procedure is followed", 36. Right Of Accused U/S 50 Of NDPS Act To Be Searched In Presence Of Magistrate Violated: Gujarat High Court Upholds Order Of Acquittal, Case Title: State Of Gujarat v. Ugamsinh Dhanrajsinh. If there are clear warning signs of criminal activity, then an officer could perform a search even if the person declines to give permission. v. State of Punjab, wherein the Apex Court had reached a similar conclusion. 5. BAIL APPLICATION No. The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently expressed its dismay over the conduct of Police officials, who were the official witnesses in a NDPS case, for not deposing despite issuance of multiple bailable, non-bailable and arrest warrants. 37. In December, the Court released an addendum to Almon v Hill, 2022 NSSC 310, a decision about the imputation of income for child support determinations. "This Court is anxious over the fact that jails debilitate the under-trial prisoners and if after the long wait, the accused is ultimately acquitted, then how would the long years spent by the under-trial in custody be restored to him/her/themThe issue of a large number of under-trial prisoners and their poor living conditions has been standing stubborn against the otherwise incandescent face of our democracy," the bench of Justice Farjand Ali remarked. Adversely Affect Young Generation: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail To Accused Under NDPS Act In Custody For Almost A Year, Case Title: Rahul Islam Khan and Anr. The Bombay High Court granted bail to a priest who is accused of growing cannabis plants in the temple premises in Pune. The Allahabad High Court last week granted bail to a man booked under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) from whose possession allegedly over 1 Quintal of Ganja was recovered. Warrantless Video Surveillance is . The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Wednesday granted bail to a man booked under the NDPS Act for allegedly possessing 2kg of Heroin in view of his custody period of over 2.5 years and observing that his further incarceration would be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. NDPS Act | Accused's Refusal To Get A Search Conducted Under Section 50 Would Be Vitiated If He Misunderstands Questions Put To Him: Delhi HC, Title: STATE v. DENIS JAUREGUL MENDIZABAL. v. State of Kerala. Having held so, Justice Mohan Lal noted that a confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act would remain inadmissible in the trial for an offence under the NDPS Act. "Mere contacts with the co-accused who were found in possession cannot be treated to be a corroborative material in absence of substantive material found against the accused," the High Court affirmed. NDPS Act | Weight Of Neutral Substance Not To Be Ignored While Determining Quantity Of Seized Contraband: Delhi High Court. 75. Jewel v. NSA. The Bench comprising Justice Umesh A. Trivedi was hearing an application under Section 439 for offences under Sections 8(c),22(c), and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985. 15. The petitioner was found to be in illegal possession of 16 kgs of Ganja that he was apprehended by the police and the contraband was seized from his possession. Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a case registered under Section 18 of NDPS Act, held that the crime motorcycle impounded or seized should be released on superdari to the petitioner. United States of America v. City of Seattle. NDPS Act | Failure To File FSL Report Within 15 Days Of Recovery Not Ground For Grant Of Bail: Karnataka High Court. NDPS Act | Standard Of "Conscious Possession" Different In Case Of A Public Transport As Opposed To Private Vehicle: J&K&L High Court. The single judge bench comprising Justice Jasmeet Singh noted that denial of bail without any possibility of the trial concluding anytime soon would cause an infringement of the accused person's right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Karnataka High Court while rejecting a bail application by an accused charged under provisions of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act (NDPS) has reiterated that merely because the chemical analysis report of the contraband seized is not received within 15 days, it is not a ground to release the accused on bail. In a case involving a foreign national arrested under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), the Delhi High Court clarified the liability of persons accused of offenses involving controlled substances and the foreigner's right to bail. Justice K. Surender noted that while drawing samples from the seized contraband, the investigating authority failed to specify as to from whom the said sample of Ganja was taken as 55 packets were seized from the 1st petitioner/A1 40 packets were seized from the 2nd petitioner/A2, 12 packets were seized from A10. The Punjab & Haryana High Court has highlighted that Section 42 of the NDPS Act which deals with Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorization relates only to search of a building, conveyance or enclosed place and includes 'parked vehicles'. The principle audi alteram partem needs to applied at every stage of an adversarial proceeding to ensure fair trial, unless its applicability is expressly ousted by statue." NDPS Act | Non-Compliance Of Section 41 No Ground For Granting Bail, Rigours Of Section 37 Still Have To Be Met : Delhi High Court. Madras High Court Quashes NDPS Proceedings After Authorities Fail To Test Contraband Even After 5 Years, Case Title: Murali v. The Inspector of Police. The High Court held that a person merely sitting in a vehicle from which contrabands were seized does not necessarily point to the fact that the said person had possession of those contrabands. 28. The Calcutta High Court granted default bail after noting that no notice of the application seeking extension of time in filing of chargesheet under Section 36A(4) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) had been served upon the accused thereby violating principles of natural justice. A Warner Bros. Bhang Not Covered Under NDPS Act, Prosecution Must Show It Is Prepared From Charas/ Ganja: Karnataka High Court, Case Title: ROSHAN KUMAR MISHRA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6611 OF 2022. It cannot be stated that he was in physical custody of the Court so as to claim the computation of such period in reckoning the period of 180 days of detention to acquire the statutory right under proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 Cr. Status Conference. 43. 51. Singh was found in possession of two polybags containing black colour material, later found to be "afeem". Subscribe to Live Law now and get unlimited access. Rigours Of Section 37 NDPS Act Not Applicable In Cases Where Collection Of Contraband Sample Itself Faulty: Delhi High Court, Title: LAXMAN THAKUR v. STATE (GOVT. S.63 NDPS Act Does Not Bar Owner Of Seized Vehicle To Seek Interim Custody After Expiry Of 30 Days From Date Of Seizure: Tripura High Court, Case Title : Shri Bal Krishna Mishra v The State of Tripura. Washington CNN The Supreme Court on Monday wiped away a lower court decision that held that law enforcement could enter a Rhode Island man's home and seize his firearms without a warrant. As the quantity of ganja that was seized from the possession of the petitioners is a commercial quantity, the bar and rigour contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act applies to the present facts of the case. 30. A Bench comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay opined that all police officers are ordinarily equipped with smartphones and other electronic gadgets which would enable them to videograph such a recovery procedure. S.36A(4) NDPS Act | Apart From Reasons To Detain Accused Beyond Statutory Period, Prosecutor's Report Must Disclose Progress Of Investigation: Kerala HC, Case Title: Ubaid A.M. v. State of Kerala. 29. The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that the officers of the Narcotics Control Bureau are police officers within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. S.42 NDPS Act Not Applicable To Vehicle "In Transit", Not Mandatory To Obtain Warrant Even If Search Conducted After Sunset: P&H High Court, Case Title: Mandeep Kaur Versus State of Punjab , with connected matters.
Jeff Perry Blacklist,
Backwater Jacks Lake Of The Ozarks,
Articles R
Najnowsze komentarze