Amendment of Act during pendency of appeal – Recovery of 70 grams of charas – Recovered quantity fell in category of small quantity – Accused in custody for 2-1/2 years – Sentence reduced to period already undergone. (Man Mohan alias Bhuri Vs State of Uttaranchal) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 465 (Uttaranchal)
Opium – Recovery of 1 kg. and 100 grams. – Conviction – Appeal against – During pendency of appeal law amended – Provisions of amended Act applicable to pending appeals also – Sentence reduced to 3 years and amount of fine reduced to Rs.3,000/-. (Ajaib Singh @ Wakil Singh Vs State of Haryana) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 578 (P&H)
Search and seizure – Provisions of Ss.100, 165 Cr.P.C. are not inconsistent with the provisions of NDPS Act as such the same are applicable for effecting search, seizure or arrest under the NDPS Act also. (Saudan & Anr. Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 599 (Rajasthan)
Charas – One Kg. of charas not commercial quantity – Commercial quantity has to be greater than or more than or bigger than one kg. (Ratto Vs State of H.P.) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 413 (H.P.)
Non commercial quantity – Though there is no definition of non-commercial quantity, yet the quantity less than commercial quantity but greater than small quantity as referred to in Ss.20, 22 & 23 may be termed as non-commercial quantity – In view of these provisions, non-commercial quantity will be from 101 grams to 999.999 grams. (State of H.P. Vs Munshi Ram) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 574 (H.P.)
Law & order & Public order – Distinction – Very marginal – Has to be discerned and located properly while passing preventive detention order. (Sandeep Singh & Ors. Vs State of U.P.) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 427 (Allahabad)
‘Breach of law and order’ and ‘Public order’ – Distinction – If impact of act is restricted to individuals it would amount to violation of ‘law and order’ but if it affects the tempo of life of the community as a whole or a segment of the community, it would constitute violation of ‘public order’. (Kaleem Vs Union of India) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 231 (Allahabad)
Preventive detention – Killing of Hindus by Muslims is not a communal incident – There is no mention that the petitioner and his associates were shouting that the Hindus should be killed or that there were clashes between the Hindus and Muslims – Bald allegation that the assailants created terror in the locality is only to give colour to the case to create an impression that it is a case of public order. (Nizamuddin Vs State of U.P. & Ors.) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 246 (Allahabad)
Preventive detention – Non supply of report of sponsoring authority to detenu and non informing him that he has right to make representation to State Government – Amounts to denial of his right under Article 22(5) COI – Order of detention is vitiated – Detenu to be released forthwith. (Ashok Kumar Vs State of U.P. & Ors.) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 369 (Allahabad)
Rape of a widow by threatening to kill the neighbours by show of bomb – Fear psychosis created in adjoining localities – People hiding in their houses – Tempo of life of people living in neighbour of widow affected – Clear case of breach of ‘public order’ – Detention order is valid. (Kaleem Vs Union of India) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 231 (Allahabad)
Link evidence – Seized article kept in Malkhana but Malkhana register not produced to prove that it was so kept in the malkhana till it was taken over by PW6 – Sample of seal not sent alongwith the sample to Laboratory for purpose of comparing with the seal appearing on the sample bottles to prove that the seals on the sample were in fact the same seals as were put on the sample bottles immediately after seizure of the contraband – Accused acquitted. (State of Rajasthan Vs Gurmail Singh) 2005(1) Apex Court Judgments 468 (S.C.) : 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 59 (S.C.)
For conviction accused must be in conscious possession of contraband. (Gopal Vs State of M.P.) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 116 (S.C.)
Opium – Recovered from a heap of kadvi lying on the boundary of agricultural field survey Nos.1511 & 1517 – One belonging to appellant and other to father of acquitted accused – No evidence as to who placed kadvi on boundary of two fields – Though ownership of two survey Nos. recorded in revenue record but actual possession of either of fields not mentioned in record – Appellant cannot be said to be in conscious possession of opium – Conviction cannot be sustained. (Gopal Vs State of M.P.) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 116 (S.C.)
Preventive detention – Representation – Non consideration – Representation sent to Central Govt. returned to State Govt. with remarks that representation was not addressed to Central Govt. & so be disposed of by State – Representation made by petitioner indicates his desire to be considered by Central Govt. as well – It was incumbent upon Govt. of India to consider the representation as required u/s 14 of the Act – Detention order stood vitiated. (Mohd. Anees @ Guddu Vs State of U.P.) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 443 (Allahabad)
Sample – Fact as to how many days and in what condition samples remained in custody of person deputed to deposit same in Forensic Science Laboratory not proved – Link evidence of handing over such samples to said person and depositing same in Malkhana missing – Intactness of samples during all this period not proved – Independent witness not procured while conducting search and seizure – Names of persons refusing to become witnesses of search and seizure not disclosed – Provisions regarding search and seizure not complied with and accused prejudiced because of that – Conviction set aside. (Saudan & Anr. Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 599 (Rajasthan)
Poppy husk – Recovery of 2 Qntl. 80 Kg. – Conviction – Appeal against – No independent corroboration of prosecution story – Information received from informer not transmitted to higher police officer – Accused not given option of search before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate – Detailed report of alleged recovery not transmitted to higher police officer – Sealed packets not resealed before their placement in malkhana – Search by ASI without jurisdiction – Conviction set aside. (Mithu Singh Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 520 (Rajasthan)
Opium – No report of Forensic Science Laboratory to prove that material recovered is opium – Unexhibited report not to be taken note of – Officers of raiding party not proved to be experts – Omission to examine witness to prove intactness of seals of samples – Time of recording statement of accused missing – Nothing to prove that statement was recorded prior to arrest – No evidence of sale of opium by accused ‘K’ to accused ‘S’ – Conviction of both accused unsustainable. (Kishan Lal Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 695 (Raj.)
Sample – Two different dates of despatch of sample to Forensic Science Laboratory – It cannot be said that what was seized from the accused was sent to the Chemical Examiner – On this ground alone, the accused is entitled to acquittal. (Madan Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 28 (Raj.)
Material contradictions in the statement of witnesses as to in whose custody the sample of contraband remained – Malkhana register not produced in evidence – It can safely be held that the prosecution has not been able to prove that the seals remained intact right from seizure till the same were handed over to the FSL for chemical examination. (Bhanwar Lal Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 433 (Rajasthan)
Search – Option given whether accused would like to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Police Officer – When word ‘Police Gazetted Officer’ is there in the notice it cannot be held that compliance of S.50 of the Act has been made – This is a blatant disregard of the provision of S.50 of the Act – As compliance of provision of S.50 is not made in letter and spirit as such proceedings and trial stand vitiated and accused is entitled to acquittal on this ground alone. (Suresh Chandra Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 125 (Raj.)
Contraband – Recovery – Except that four persons were standing near three vehicles no other circumstance to suggest that accused were in conscious possession of material recovered from tractor and jeep – Nothing recovered from motor cycle – Recovery memo signed by accused is of no effect – Motbirs denying prosecution story – No independent witness to corroborate prosecution story – Search after sunset and before sunrise without search warrant vitiated – Conviction set aside. (Chaina Ram & Ors. Vs Union Of India) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 453 (Rajasthan)
Opium – Sample stated to be wrapped in paper envelope but received at analysis end in plastic bag – Substance analysed whether same as sent, becomes doubtful – Conviction set aside. (Kesar Singh Vs Union of India) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 253(Rajasthan)
Recovery of 2 Kg. opium – Forensic Science Laboratory report not tendered in evidence nor does it tally with weight of sample – Raises doubt as to whether sample remained intact – Search not conducted in presence of independent witnesses – No evidence as to which independent person refused to be a witness when contacted – Search in presence of police department becomes doubtful – Timings mentioned in various memos not tallying with each other – Over writing of arrest memo – All such infirmities go to root of case – Conviction set aside. (Bhaiyan @ Shiv Murti Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 70 (Rajasthan)
Conviction – Appeal against – Not clear from record how and through whom information by SHO was sent to SP – No evidence that information was recorded by SP – Failure to comply with S.42(2) – Quantity of sample too meagre to be weighed – PW 6 denying from his signature on letter sending sample for chemical examination – Possibility of sample being tampered with not ruled out – Considerable difference in quantity of contraband sealed and that found at chemical examination – Conviction set aside on benefit of doubt. (Kalua alias Laxman Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 50 (Raj.)
Recovery of 17 gms. of smack at fair ground – Independent witnesses not joined – Recovery from Motor cycle not registered in name of accused – Seizure of motor cycle not sufficient to prove same to be in exclusive possession of accused – Fact that accused was found sitting on motor cycle not sufficient to conclude that contraband beneath its seat cover was in exclusive possession of accused – Time of deposit of contraband in malkhana recorded after filing of charge sheet – Reason to believe interpolation in documents – Conviction set aside. (Murli Manohar Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 371 (Rajasthan)
Recovery of 41 capsules, each containing 5 grams of heroin from body cavity of accused purged by him in hospital – Conviction – High Court in appeal found among other grounds that prosecution had failed to establish that 41 capsules were actually seized from accused because no body who was involved in process of collecting such capsules after same were purged by accused examined – Appeal against – Appeal liable to fail on the ground that prosecution failed to establish that 41 capsules were infact purged by accused when infact nine accused persons had been brought to hospital and they all had purged capsules containing contraband – Sweeper who used to clean the sachets after those were purged by accused not examined – Hospital inventory not bearing signatures of any official – Acquittal not to be interfered with. (Narcotics control Bureau, Mumbai Vs Abdullah Hussain Juma & Anr.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 303 (S.C.)
Planting of Ganza plants – Seizure of 17 plants – It must be proved that accused cultivated the plant and it is not enough that few plants were found in the property of the accused. (Alakh Ram Vs State of U.P.) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 263 (S.C.)
Inspector of Police was the complainant and he himself conducted the investigation of the case – Such investigation can only be assailed on the ground of bias or real likelihood of bias on the part of the investigating officer – Question of bias depends on facts and circumstances of each case. (S.Jeevanantham Vs The State through Inspector of Police, TN) 2004(2) Apex Court Judgments 47 (S.C.)
Contraband – Recovery of – Investigation by police official who was the complainant – Such police official does not forfeits his right to investigation – However, such investigation can be assailed only on the ground of bias or real likelihood of bias on the part of the investigating officer – Question of bias depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. (S.Jeevanantham Vs State through Inspector of Police, TN) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 253 (S.C.)
Poppy husk – Recovery of 32 bags from trolley – Evidence that accused kept on tying trolley with rope even after seeing police – Appears improbable – Witnesses admitted that trolley was punctured and another person had left it and fled away – Other witness admitted that accused was not found near trolley – Evidence of two defence witnesses could not be shattered – SHO PW3 admitted that in memo of prior information it was not recorded that information was sent to superior officials – There is non compliance of mandatory provision of S.42(2) of the Act – Conviction set aside. (Surja Ram Vs State of Rajasthan) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 177(Rajasthan)
Poppy straw – Recovery of 35 Kg. – Accused being house lady – Quantity not commercial quantity – No previous conviction – Reasonable grounds to accept contention that accused has not committed offence and there is no likelihood of engaging herself in similar activity in future – Bail granted. (Padma Mishra Vs State of Uttaranchal) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 138 (Uttaranchal)
Contraband – Person searching is required to offer himself for his personal search before entering in the premises – When person searching not offering himself for his personal search, conviction cannot be sustained. (Surendra Singh & Chintu Vs Union of India) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 598 (M.P.)
Contraband – Recovery from room – Accused were in room and tried to run away on seeing police party – In absence of evidence as to whom room belonged and who was possessing it appellants could not be said to be in possession of contraband. (Surendra Singh & Chintu Vs Union of India) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 598 (M.P.)
Opium – Four samples each 50 grams from each of four packets drawn but samples received in FSL were 33.1, 33.5, 33.5 and 35.8 grams – There was non compliance of S.55 of the Act as Malkhana Incharge did not state that samples were affixed seal of SHO also besides seal of seizing officer – Two independent witnesses failed to support case – Non compliance of provisions of S.57 – Conviction could not be sustained. (Balvinder Singh & Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 451 (Rajasthan)
Opium – Recovery of 500 grams – Panch witnesses stated that search of accused was not taken before them and nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused – Witnesses admitted their signatures on memos and had no explanation for it – Witnesses appear to have been won over – Statement of police witnesses acceptable after close scrutiny – Testimony of police officials found acceptable and conviction cannot be set aside on that ground. (Dharmendra Kumar Parmar Vs State of M.P.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 477 (M.P.)
Recovery – In a serious case under NDPS Act, it is desirable that recovery should be supported by some independent evidence. (Balvinder Singh & Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 451 (Rajasthan)
Charas – Recovery of 450 gms. – No previous conviction of applicant – Reasonable ground to accept argument that he has not committed offence and no likelihood of engaging himself in similar activity in future – Bail granted. (Zameel Vs State of Uttaranchal) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 524 (Uttaranchal)
Ganja – Recovery of 2.800 Kg. – Applicant in custody since 5.12.2002 – Bail allowed. (Trinath Dadsena Vs State of Chhattisgarh) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 285 (Chhattisgarh)
Possession of 25 ampoules of Buprenorphine Hydrochloride (Titidigesic) of 2 ml each with three syringes – Quantity within limit prescribed under rule 66 – Drugs for personal consumption – No permit with accused under rule 66 – If possession of Psychotropic substance is justified no separate permit is required – Conviction set aside. (Sajan Abraham Vs. State of Kerala ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 456 (S.C.)
Non joining of independent witnesses – Recovery of poppy husk on secret information – No witness from the locality joined – One witness joined from different village – Recovery doubtful for non compliance of S.100 Cr.P.C. – Conviction set aside. (Karnail Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 474 (P&H)
Search, seizure or arrest under NDPS Act – Provisions of Ss.100, 165 Cr.P.C. are applicable. (Karnail Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 474 (P&H)
Provisions of S.100 Cr.P.C. if they are not inconsistent with the provisions of NDPS Act, are applicable. (State of Punjab Vs Jalaur Singh) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 234 (P&H)
Bail – Poppy husk – Recovery of 10 Kg. – Not a commercial quantity – Accused in custody for 17 months – Bail allowed. (Balwinder Singh alias Baljinder Singh alias Jiji Vs State of Punjab) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 705 (P&H)
Narcotic substance – Accused not arrested at the spot as he had run away inspite of the fact that police party consisted of 7/8 persons and they were armed with weapons and also having a Gypsy car – Defence version that father of accused had submitted complaint against Head Constable – Bail allowed. (Chuhar Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 144 (P&H)
Recovery of contraband carried in a truck/vehicle – Appellants were sitting on gunny bag who were identified by seizing officer ASI and they ran away in dark – Vehicle was intercepted in midnight – Police party was equipped with torch, arms, wireless and vehicles and were seven officials – It is difficult to believe that appellant could escape in that situation – Appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt. (Dharminder Kumar Vs State of Punjab) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 605 (P&H)
Accused sitting on poppy husk bags – Merely sitting on poppy husk bags does not infer that accused were in conscious possession of those bags. (Baldev Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 29 (P&H)
Conscious possession – 14 bags of poppy husk recovered from trolley – Four persons sitting in trolley jumped away – Prosecution of driver – In statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. it was not put to accused that 14 bags of poppy husk were lying in the trolley – It was put to accused that he was in possession of those bags – Conscious possession not proved – Conviction set aside. (Bhola Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 865 (P&H)
Conscious possession – 15 bags of poppy husk recovered from trolley – Four persons sitting in trolley jumped away – Driver cannot be said to be in conscious possession – Conviction set aside. (Bhola Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 865 (P&H)
Conscious possession – Two essential elements of possession are – the element of physical control and secondly, the animus or intent with which control is exercised – It is conscious and intelligent possession of any contraband which attracts penal provision of Act and it is for the prosecution to establish that the accused was found in conscious and intelligent possession of the contraband. (Baldev Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 29 (P&H)
Contraband – Conscious possession – Recovery of 46 bags of poppy husk in police raid – Accused apprehended at spot – Accused was sitting on bags – Conscious possession of gunny bags containing poppy husk has to be attributed to him. (Karamjit Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 87 (P&H)
Contraband – Conscious possession – Recovery of contraband from a bag being carried on a cycle which belonged to accused – Held, bag was in possession of accused as he had dominion and control over it. (Narain Lal Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 593 (Rajasthan)
Contraband – Possession – Recovery of 12 bags of poppy husk from driver of truck and another person who was sitting by the side of driver – Both persons held to be in possession of bags. (Gurdip Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 746 (P&H)
Contraband – Recovery at Railway station – Independent witness not joined despite available – Accused acquitted. (Devi Dial Vs State of Haryana) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 663 (P&H)
Contraband – Recovery by ASI and other police personnel – ASI himself facing trial in NDPS Act – Accused does not get any benefit – Case against ASI in NDPS Act will take its own legal course. (Gurdip Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 746 (P&H)
Contraband – Recovery of – By ASI who was on Nakabandi – He called DSP and handed over contraband to him – Contention that investigation was done by ASI who was not authorised not tenable – No legal infirmity when DSP joined investigation. (Gurdip Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 746 (P&H)
Conviction – Set aside by High Court on a view that report of Forensic Science Laboratory and Botanical examination report disclosed that substance found was poppy capsule and said description did not identify substance found to be opium poppy – Respondents not traceable – Appeal dismissed as not pressed. (State of Gujarat Vs Gopal Laxman Thakur & Anr.) 2005(1) Apex Court Judgments 469 (S.C.) : 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 108 (S.C.)
Link evidence – Recovery of contraband – Affidavit to prove link evidence – Persons who had sworn these affidavits not produced for cross examination – Affidavit also not put to accused when examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. – Accused acquitted, inter alia, on this ground. (Devi Dial Vs State of Haryana) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 663 (P&H)
Opium – Recovery of – One out of many present on spot joined in investigation – One joined known to I.O. – That does not mean that he was a partial or stock witness – It is not necessary for the police to join all the persons in the investigation who were present on the spot. (Pure Lal Vs State of Haryana) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 269 (S.C.)
Poppy husk – Recovery at thoroughfare – No independent witness joined though available – Adverse inference drawn – Accused acquitted giving benefit of doubt. (State of Punjab Vs Jalaur Singh) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 234 (P&H)
Poppy husk – Recovery from hut of accused in pursuance of disclosure statement of accused – Compliance of S.50 is not required. (Makhan Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 350 (P&H)
Poppy husk – Recovery from hut of accused on secret information – Non joining of independent witnesses when recovery was effected – No animosity shown against official witnesses – Official witnesses are to be kept at par with the independent witnesses – Simply because they are from the police department they cannot be discarded or dubbed as interested witnesses – Conviction upheld. (Makhan Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 350 (P&H)
Poppy husk – Recovery from truck – Driver arrested at spot but two others escaped and arrested later on – No evidence as to who disclosed their names – They even not identified by prosecution witnesses in Court – Conviction of these two accused set aside. (Hans Raj alias Hansa & Ors. Vs State of Punjab) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 402 (P&H)
Poppy husk – Recovery of – CFSL Form should be prepared at the spot and should be prepared and sealed by the officer making seizure at the spot where the case property is seized and it should be deposited in the Malkhana alongwith sample and case property – Such form should also be sealed by the SHO to whom the sample and case property is handed over and the same should accompany the sample to Chemical Examiner. (Bhola Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 865 (P&H)
Poppy husk – Recovery of 100 bags lying in a field in the village and accused found sitting on those bags – Accused belonged to different villages – No investigation was made as to how bags were transported to place of incident – No evidence to show ownership of poppy husk – Failure to give satisfactory explanation by accused for being present on that place itself does not prove that they were in possession of those articles – Acquittal requires no interference. (State of Punjab Vs Balkar Singh & Anr.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 185 (S.C.)
Poppy husk – Recovery of 16 bags – No seal on 4 bags and broken seal on 12 bags – No slip on any of the bags – Bags produced in Court not linked with the case property – Accused acquitted. (Nirmal Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 677 (P&H)
Poppy husk – Recovery of 16 bags from tractor trolley underneath green fodder – Two out of four persons ran way on seeing police party – Two persons arrested at the spot – They were sitting on green fodder and kept sitting on the trolley and did not try to run away – They contended that they had taken a lift and no knowledge that trolley contained gunny bags of poppy husk – Their conduct shows that they were not in conscious possession – Accused acquitted. (Nirmal Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 677 (P&H)
poppy husk – Recovery of 20 Kgs. – Not a commercial quantity under amended provisions – Accused faced trial for 3 years – Sentence reduced from 10 years to two years and fine reduced from one lac to Rs.5,000/-. (Gurmeet Singh Vs State of Haryana) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 732 (P&H)
Poppy husk – Recovery of 30 bags – Driver not shown to be in conscious possession of contraband – Owner of tempo sitting on right side of driver – Both belonged to different places – There is possibility that driver had been engaged for that day only – Moreover no alternative charges were framed against driver – Driver acquitted. (Gurdip Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 592 (P&H)
Poppy husk – Recovery of 40 kgs. – No independent witness joined – By itself not a ground to throw away the prosecution case – Evidence of official witnesses quite consistent and free from any doubt – No material to show that the police official had any reason or motive to falsely implicate – Conviction upheld. (Ram Sarup Vs State of Punjab) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 733 (P&H)
Poppy husk – Recovery of 5 bags – Independent witnesses – No effort made to join independent witnesses although recovery was effected at a busy thoroughfare – One witness who is said to be independent witness given up without justification – Acquittal upheld. (State of Punjab Vs Jagjit Singh) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 595 (P&H)
Poppy husk – Recovery of 50 bags – Character of I.O. – He had previously implicated the accused in a false case – He also implicated another person in false case – Both were acquitted in those cases – Strictures were passed by two Courts against the said officer – Possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out – Otherwise also prosecution version not believed. (Balwinder Singh @ Binder Vs State of Punjab) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 707 (P&H)
Poppy husk – Recovery of 80 quintals – Independent witness not examined – Testimony of official witnesses cannot be discarded on this ground alone – No evidence that official witnesses were biased against accused or had malice to implicate the accused – Since there is heavy recovery as such there is no reason for the policemen to plant such a huge quantity of contraband. (Teja Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 778 (P&H)
Poppy husk recovered from truck – Two of the accused fled away – Their face not seen by witnesses – Their identification on the basis of wearing apparels not believed – Accused acquitted giving them benefit of doubt. (Harpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 818 (P&H)
Poppy husk recovered on getting secret information – No independent witness joined – Not a ground to discard statement of official witnesses – Only rule of caution is that their statements should be examined with extra care in order to find out whether they inspire confidence and are worthy of reliance. (Jaswant Singh alias Jassa Vs State of Haryana) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 643 (P&H)
Recovery – Independent witnesses available but not joined at the time of recovery – Acquittal upheld. (State of Punjab Vs Jaswant Singh) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 567 (P&H)
Recovery of 3 bags of poppy husk which weighed 53 Kgs. – Weight of bags not to be included – Weight of poppy husk taken to be 50 Kgs. giving allowance to marginal error in weighment – Minimum sentence not applicable – Sentence reduced to four years and six months each and sentence of fine reduced to Rs.5,000/- each. (Gurlal Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 648 (P&H)
Recovery of 46 bags of poppy husk in a police raid at night time – Out of two accused one escaped but I.O. identified him in torch light – Not believable that I.O. could identify when accused was earlier not known to him – Accused acquitted – Conviction of accused apprehended at spot upheld. (Karamjit Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 87 (P&H)
Recovery of 60 bags of poppy husk – Official witnesses – Evidentiary value – Recovery effected by SHO and ASI and an independent witness – Witness not examined as won over – Not sufficient to throw away the case of prosecution, when accused were arrested at the spot. (Harpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 818 (P&H)
Recovery of contraband if marginally higher than 50 Kgs. it should be treated to be 50 Kgs. (Gurlal Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 648 (P&H)
Recovery of poppy husk from a truck – Two accused apprehended at the spot and two escaped – Identity of two accused who fled away could not be established beyond reasonable doubt – Evidence from wearing apparels not believed – Both acquitted giving benefit of doubt. (Harpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 818 (P&H)
Sample deposited with Chemical Examiner after 21 days of recovery – Delay is fatal coupled with the fact that no independent witness was joined and seal used for sealing the samples remained with the Police Officials during this period. (State of Punjab Vs Jaswant Singh) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 567 (P&H)
Seal – Till case property is despatched to Forensic Science Laboratory, seal should not be available to the prosecuting agency and in absence of such safeguard, the possibility of seal being tampered with, substance being changed and containers being re-sealed cannot be ruled out. (Baldev Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 29 (P&H)
Seal after use not handed over to an independent witness – It suggests that independent witness was not joined in police party and his signatures were obtained afterwards – This fact makes prosecution story doubtful. (Mella Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 119 (P&H)
‘Possession’ – There are three requisites – (i) there must be actual or potential physical control; (ii) physical control is not possession unless accompanied by intention; if a thing is put into the hand of a sleeping person, he has not possession of it; (iii) possibility and intention must be visible or evidenced by external signs, for if the thing shows no signs of being under the control of anyone, it is not possessed. (Narain Lal Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 593 (Rajasthan)
Charge u/s 15 of the Act – Charge altered to S.25 after close of prosecution evidence as well as defence and after hearing the arguments – Prosecution failed to examine a person in whose presence recovery was effected – It is a serious infirmity – Accused acquitted inter alia on this ground. (Gurmail Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 297 (P&H)
Contraband – Conscious possession – Accused sitting on gunny bags containing contraband – Held, accused is in conscious possession – Conviction upheld. (Megh Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 422 (S.C.)
Poppy husk – Recovery of 176 bags of 39 Kg. each from truck – No independent witness – It is quite unbelievable that such a huge quantity of poppy husk will be falsely implanted on the accused – Police officials cannot be disbelieved merely for the reason that they are from the Police Department – In case the version of Police Officials is natural and trustworthy, conviction can be recorded even on that basis. (Jarnail Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 180 (P&H)
Amended provision – Applies to pending trials and pending appeals. (Lachhman Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 531 (P&H)
Poppy husk – Recovery of 10 Kg. – Amended provisions of the Act apply – Recovery is less than commercial quantity but greater than small quantity – Accused convicted and sentenced to 10 years RI – Sentence reduced to already undergone (more than 5-1/2 years) and fine reduced from one lac to twenty thousand. (Lachhman Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 531 (P&H)
Recovery of contraband carried in a truck/vehicle – Conviction – Appeal against – Conviction challenged on plea of violation of provision of S.42 of the Act – Seizing Officer having received secret information in writing did not record his reasons of belief of commission of offence nor did he disclose said information to superior officers – Conveyance of contraband in a public place falls u/s 43 of the Act and provision of S.42 is not applicable – Conviction cannot be disturbed. (Dharminder Kumar Vs State of Punjab) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 605 (P&H)
Poppy husk – Case property exhibited in Court but not produced before Illaqa Magistrate – Inconsequential – Moreover there is no cross examination in this regard. (Jaswant Singh alias Jassa Vs State of Haryana) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 643 (P&H)
Opium – Recovery of 800 grams – Accused convicted and sentenced to ten years R.I. and fine of Rs.one lac – Sentence awarded in the year 1996 – Held, sentence is on higher side – Sentence reduced to already undergone (4-1/2 years) – Fine reduced to Rs.5,000/-. (Darshan Singh Vs The State of Haryana) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 100 (P&H)
Search and seizure – Evidence of search and seizure does not become vitiated solely for the reason that the evidence is not supported by independent witness. (Hakikat Rai Vs State of Haryana) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 419 (P&H)
Search and seizure – Independent witness not joined – Recovery of 10 Kgs. of opium recovered in presence of DSP and an official of Excise and Taxation Department – It cannot be accepted that police will falsely implicate anyone for such a heavy recovery especially when no animosity is shown against any police official. (Hakikat Rai Vs State of Haryana) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 419 (P&H)
Search and seizure – It is always desirable to prepare the seizure mahazar at the spot itself from where the contraband articles were taken into custody. (Khet Singh Vs Union of India) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 363 (S.C.)
Search and seizure – Procedural illegality – Evidence collected thereby does not become inadmissible – However, if search and seizure was in complete defiance of law and evidence collected likely to have been tampered with or interpolated during the course of such search or seizure, then, it could be said that the evidence is not liable to be admissible in evidence. (Khet Singh Vs Union of India) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 363 (S.C.)
Reduction in sentence – Recovery of 1 Kgs of opium in the year 1988 – Accused convicted and sentenced to 10 years RI and to pay fine of Rs.one lac – Quantity of opium is not commercial quantity under Amending Act 9 of 2001 – Sentence reduced to already undergone (8 years) and sentence of fine reduced to Rs.5,000/-. (Vir Bhan Vs The State of Haryana) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 631 (P&H)
Seizure of contraband valuing Rs.8.75 crores – Statement of accused u/s 108 Customs Act that co-accused was financier of contraband – No other evidence – Co-accused acquitted. (Tarlochan Singh Vs The Assistant commissioner, Customs) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 184 (P&H)
Opium – Sample tested by Chemical Examiner, Kandaghat Laboratory (H.P.) – No illegality – Report of Chemical Examiner cannot be excluded from consideration. (State of Himachal Pradesh Vs Pawan Kumar) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 362 (S.C.)
Opium – Non compliance with mandatory provisions of Ss.42 & 50 – No evidence to establish exclusive possession of the place from where contraband recovered – Conviction set aside. (Prahlada Ram Vs State of Rajasthan) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 594 (Rajasthan)
Case property – Not produced in Court – No adverse inference can be drawn as recovery was proved by witnesses and sample was taken by Magistrate and case property was sealed with seal of Magistrate. (Tarlochan Singh Vs The Assistant commissioner, Customs) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 184 (P&H)
Conscious possession – Police stopped a car which was driven by owner – A bag containing opium was lying on front seat – Held, accused was in conscious possession of opium. (Mahender Singh Vs State of Haryana) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 336 (P&H)
Link evidence – Affidavit of two police officials and report of chemical examiner tendered in evidence without affording an opportunity to accused to put questions to them with regard to the link evidence – These documents not put to accused in his examination under S.313 Cr.P.C. – Report of Chemical Examiner cannot be acted upon as possibility cannot be ruled out that after the seizure and before the analysis the sample was not tempered with – Accused acquitted. (Sawant Ram Vs State of Haryana) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 153 (P&H)
NDPS Act provides stringent punishment – Provisions of the Act are therefore required to be complied with strictly. (State of Punjab Vs Kashmir Singh) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 270 (P&H)
Opium – Joining of independent witnesses – Recovery of 1 Kg. 150 grams of opium at Bus Stand – No public witness joined as they refused to join despite request by Investigating Officer – Conviction based on official witnesses whose statements inspired confidence – Conviction upheld. (Shiv Charan Singh Vs State of Haryana) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 227 (P&H)
Opium – Recovery of 1500 grams – Not a commercial quantity as per amending Act – This amendment is applicable to appeals also – Sentence reduced from 10 years to 2-1/2 years – Fine reduced from Rs.One Lac to Rs.3000/-. (Bachan Singh Vs State of Haryana) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 294 (P&H)
Opium – Recovery of 2 Kg. – It is not commercial quantity as per amendment in the Act – Sentence reduced from 10 years to 5 years and fine reduced from Rs.One lac to Rs.10,000/-. (Jagtar Singh @ Jagga Vs State of Punjab) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 607 (P&H)
Opium – Recovery of 1 Kg. and 400 grams – Conviction and sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.One lac – Quantity of opium non-commercial quantity – Sentence reduced to already undergone (3 years) – Accused to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-. (Ajai Vikas Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 27 (P&H)
Opium – Recovery of 38 Kgs. – Contention of false implication – Contention not tenable – If police had to falsely implicate the accused then there was no necessity to plant such a huge quantity of opium whose value runs in lacs of rupees. (Jarnail Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 244 (P&H)
Opium – Recovery of – Joining independent witnesses – Police on patrol duty – Recovery taken place just by chance – No evidence that any independent witness was available but was not intentionally joined – In such circumstances police is not obliged to take independent witness with them – Absence of independent evidence does not make prosecution case doubtful. (Des Raj Khanna Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 628 (P&H)
Opium – Recovery – Independent witnesses available but not joined in the investigation – Casts a doubt on the prosecution story. (Hanuman Vs The State of Haryana) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 596 (P&H)
Opium – Sample sent to Chemical Examiner after 13 days – Seals used in sealing the sample received by Chemical Examiner found intact and tallied with the specimen seals sent alongwith the sample – Thus, no prejudice whatsoever had resulted to the accused. (Shiv Charan Singh Vs State of Haryana) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 227 (P&H)
Opium – Sealing of case property – Seal is not required by law to be handed over to non official nor it is the mandate of law that such non official must be examined. (Shiv Charan Singh Vs State of Haryana) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 227 (P&H)
Place of recovery thoroughfare – People continued to pass but none of them asked to join in the investigation – Police had ample opportunity to associate independent witnesses but it had failed to do so – Acquittal upheld. (State of Punjab Vs Kashmir Singh) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 270 (P&H)
Search and seizure – Made by SHO in presence of DSP – It is not the requirement of law that case property be sealed with seal of higher officer. (Jarnail Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 244 (P&H)
Search of bus – Recovery of four kg. opium from a bag lying on lap of accused – No independent witness examined – Prosecution version not believed as accused will not keep the bag on his lap when checking of bus started – Conviction set aside. (Bihari Lal Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 445 (Rajasthan)
Second sample for re-analysis – Even at the defence stage accused is entitled to ask for the second sample to be sent for re-analysis. (Amar Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 222 (P&H)
Seizure of contraband from truck parked at public place – Keys of truck with accused – Accused had knowledge of contraband – Held, accused is in conscious possession – Conviction upheld. (Tarlochan Singh Vs The Assistant commissioner, Customs) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 184 (P&H)
Seizure of contraband from truck – Owner of truck not aware of this fact – Owner acquitted. (Tarlochan Singh Vs The Assistant commissioner, Customs) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 184 (P&H)
Opium – Recovery of one kg. – Conviction – Accused sentenced to 10 years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs.One lac – Held, it is not commercial quantity as per amending Act – Sentence reduced to 5 years and fine reduced to Rs.3,000/-. (Salot alias Saloth Vs State of Haryana) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 688 (P&H)
Search – Accused given option of search before Gazetted Officer or Magistrate but accused not informed that it is his right to be searched in presence of Gazetted Officer or Magistrate – Held, it is non compliance of mandatory provision of S.50. (Ashok Kumar & Anr. Vs Union of India) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 96 (Rajasthan)
Benefit of amended provision is available in a case pending in appeal – Quantity of both contraband was less than commercial – Sentence reduced to imprisonment for two years and fine Rs.20,000/- each for offence u/ss 18 & 20 of the Act. (Nagender Vs The State of Himachal Pradesh) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 55(H.P.)
Opium – Recovery of 45 Kgs. – Plea that accused were falsely implicated at the instance of a Police Inspector – Plea not tenable – No Investigator would falsely plant such a huge quantity of opium only to falsely implicate a person. (Major Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 776 (P&H)
Opium – Recovery from house of an army man – Trial by General Court Martial – Accused is entitled to all procedural safeguards under NDPS Act – When procedural safeguards not complied with then entire proceedings and conviction by Court Martial set aside. (Union of India Vs L.D.Balam Singh) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 380 (S.C)
Conviction – Appeal against – During pendency of appeal NDPS Act amended – Amending Act will apply to pending appeals also. (Hartej Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 386 (P&H)
Chance recovery – Police party on routine duty – Stopped a car and recovered 13.5 Kg. opium – Police had no prior secret information – Held, it as a chance recovery and non joining of independent witnesses is not fatal. (Mahender Singh Vs State of Haryana) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 336 (P&H)
Independent witness – Non joining – Recovery of opium – Non joining of independent witnesses is not fatal when it is chance recovery. (Mahender Singh Vs State of Haryana) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 336 (P&H)
Opium – Conscious possession – Question as to conscious possession of accused not put to accused when statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. – Neither the presumption u/s 35 nor the presumption under S.54 of the Act is attracted. (Raj Kumar Vs State of Punjab) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 368 (P&H)
Contraband – Sealed sample sent to FSL from Malkhana – It reached laboratory after two days – No explanation where the sealed sample remained for two days before it reached FSL – Accused acquitted. (Mohan Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 623 (P&H)
Opium – Recovery of one kg. – It is not commercial quantity – Sentence reduced from 10 years to 5 years. (Hartej Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 386 (P&H)
Accused and co-accused individually charged for the substantive offence u/s 20 of the Act – Acquittal of co-accused has no effect on conviction and sentence of accused. (Devinder Singh Vs State of H.P.) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 642 (H.P.)
Charas in dicky of scooter – Accused driving scooter and co-accused sitting on pillion – Key of dicky supplied by accused – Held, accused is in conscious possession of charas. (Devinder Singh Vs State of H.P.) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 642 (H.P.)
Charas – Recovery from belt bag – Recovery of another bulk of charas from underneath the seat of vehicle – Two samples each drawn from recovered charas – No evidence as to which two sample out of four samples were from each volume of charas so recovered – Possibility that both samples sent for chemical analysis were those drawn from charas 200 grams recovered from waist belt bag or from charas recovered underneath the seat of vehicle – Conviction could not be held bad but conviction was sustainable only to the extent of recovery of non-commercial quantity. (Hira Giri alias Hardev Giri Vs State of Himachal Pradesh) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 681 (H.P.)
Charas – Recovery of 180.70 gms. – Packed and sealed in two envelopes – Quantity found to be different when opened in laboratory – It eroded credibility of recovery – Conviction set aside. (Rajesh Jagdamba Avasthi Vs State of Goa) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 305 (S.C.)
Charas – Recovery of 450 grams – Appeal against conviction – Prosecution case supported by an independent witness – No reason to disbelieve him – Provisions of Ss.42 and 50 properly complied – Defence plea that accused was got falsely implicated by his in-laws was an afterthought – Conviction not to be interfered with – Accused in jail since 6.3.2000 – Sentence reduced to already undergone and fine of Rs.1 lakh reduced to Rs.20,000/-. (Hem Chand Vs State of H.P.) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 483 (H.P.)
Charas – Recovery of – Gazetted Officer in whose presence recovery was effected not examined – Non examination can certainly be considered as one of the weaknesses of the prosecution case. (Kapil Dev Vs State of Punjab) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 125 (P&H)
Charas – Recovery of – Link evidence – Seals used for sealing case property, specimen thereof and second sample retained by investigating agency but not produced in trial court – It is not fatal to prosecution case. (Hira Giri alias Hardev Giri Vs State of Himachal Pradesh) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 681 (H.P.)
Charas – Recovery of – Seal as well as the packets in custody of the same person – There was every possibility of the seized substance being tampered with. (Rajesh Jagdamba Avasthi Vs State of Goa) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 305 (S.C.)
Charas – Recovery of – Stock witness – PW2 earlier associated in two other cases under N.D.P.S. Act as panch witness – He appears to be a stock witness. (Rajesh Jagdamba Avasthi Vs State of Goa) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 305 (S.C.)
Contraband – Recovery from car – Five persons travelling in car – One of them stated that contraband belonged to him but in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. he did not state that he alone was in possession of contraband – Conviction of all five accused – Trial Court noted that all accused were known to each other – Once possession was established, person who claims that it was not a conscious possession has to establish it – Conviction cannot be interfered with. (Madan Lal & Anr. Vs State of Himachal Pradesh) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 361 (S.C.)
Contraband – Seized material not produced during trial – Panch witnesses turned hostile – I.O. not examined – Conviction cannot be sustained. (Jitendra & Anr. Vs State of M.P.) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 422 (S.C.)
Two accused sitting on road side and a bag found lying in between them which contained contraband – No evidence that any of them was handling the bag – Held, it cannot be presumed that they were in possession of that bag. (Bhagwan Dass Vs State of H.P.) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 226 (H.P.)
Charas – Recovery of 100 grams – Conviction – Appeal against – 100 grams is not commercial quantity – Amended provision is applicable to pending appeals – Sentence reduced to already undergone (16 months) – Fine reduced to Rs.5000/-. (Dharambir Vs Union Territory, Chandigarh) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 672 (P&H)
Ganja – Recovery of 18 kg. – Sample – Taken after two months of seizure – Prosecution failed to establish that article seized was sealed and kept in proper custody, that sample sent for chemical examination was the same taken from bags – Conviction cannot be sustained. (Rajendra Prasad Vs State of Bihar) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 704 (Patna)
Recovery of 1.5 kg. of ganja – Accused in jail for period more than the sentence provided for such offence – Accused to be released forthwith and proceedings dropped. (Anil Das Vs State) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 757 (Karnataka)
Conviction contemplated under the Section do not violate Art.20 of the Constitution of India as far as pre-amendment accusations are concerned. (Musthafa Vs State of Kerala) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 449 (Kerala)
Contraband – Sent for chemical examination after 4 days – Contraband was kept in proper and safe custody – Conviction by trial Court was proper. (State of Orissa Vs Kanduri Sahoo) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 779 (S.C.)
Ganja – Recovery of 5 Kgs. 700 grams from a suitcase – In complaint the colour of suitcase shown as brown whereas in Panchanama it is shown as light grey – Fit case to admit applicant to bail. (Satoranjan Vs State of Chhattisgarh) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 134 (M.P.)
hang’ – Recovery of – Bhang is not narcotic or even psychotropic drug – The same is however violative of S.3(13) punishable u/s 61 of Punjab Excise Act – Bail allowed. (Gurdial Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 296 (P&H)
Offence under NDPS Act – Contraband when found to be less than commercial quantity then rigor of S.37(1)(b) is not attracted and bail application is to be dealt with under S.439 Cr.P.C. (Manoj Kumar Vs State of H.P.) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 551 (H.P.)
Charas – Recovery of 350 grams – Conviction – Appeal against – Amendment of Act during pendency of appeal – Accused is entitled to the amended provisions – Accused not a previous convict and no evidence that Charas found in his possession was for sale – Sentence reduced to 2-1/2 years imprisonment & fine of Rs.20,000/-. (Satpal Vs State of H.P.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 740 (H.P.)
Appeal pending – Amendment of Act during pendency of appeal – Accused is entitled to the amended provisions on the point of sentence. (Satpal Vs State of H.P.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 740 (H.P.)
Conscious possession – Recovery of contraband from cavity of jeep – Accused (Driver) of jeep immediately stopped the jeep when required by custom officer and no attempt made to prevent search or to run away – Accused ignorant about the recovered contraband – Accused was employed 15 days before occurrence – Conduct of accused shows that he had no knowledge of cavity and concealment – Accused was used as scapegoat – Conscious possession not proved – Owner of jeep not interrogated – Accused acquitted. (Munna Vs The State) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 485 (Allahabad)
Recovery of “Ganja”- 42 Kgs of Ganja recovered from the baggage which accused was carrying in a train – Provision of 5.50 not applicable – Procedure for informing Superior Officer provided u/s 41 and 42 of the Act, also not applicable. (Gaur Moni Singha Vs State of Assam) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 684 (Guwahati)
Contraband – Hidden in panties – Accused herself taking out the contraband from her panties and handing it over to the Officer – Non production of the panties is not fatal. (Maheswari Vs Jaideep) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 70 (Kerala)
Ganja – Recovery of 47-1/2 kg. – Public witnesses not belonging to village in which recovery made – They are chance witnesses – One not supporting prosecution story and the other not appearing in witness box – Several villagers collected at site of occurrence but none of them examined – In absence of probable and natural witnesses of village difficult to place reliance on genuineness of recovery memo – Serious infirmities in evidence of P.W.1 Sub Inspector and P.W.3 Circle Officer which clearly point to conclusion that prosecution story is concocted version – Neither of two police officers ever visited place of arrest and recovery – Conviction and sentence of appellant not sustainable – Appellant acquitted. (Radhey Shyam Gupta (In Jail) Vs State of U.P.) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 614 (All.)
Heroin – Recovery of 9 Kgs. – Accused does not deserve even the least sympathy of Court with regard to quantum of sentence – Sentence of 15 years upheld. (Gurinder Singh Vs Union Territory, Chandigarh) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 961 (P&H)
Appellant took I.O. to a building and went into a room and from one cupboard took out polythene bag containing brown sugar – Ownership and possession of premises from where contraband was seized as belonging to appellant not established – Held, appellant is entitled to acquittal. (Mohammad Ismail Vs State of Maharashtra) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 649 (Bombay)
Brown sugar – Recovery of – Brown sugar contains heroin which is a prohibited drug – Possession of it is punishable u/s 21 of the Act. (P.P.Fathima Vs State of Kerala) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 558 (S.C.)
Brown sugar – Recovery of – Panch witness to the seizure not supporting prosecution – By itself does not make the prosecution case any less acceptable if otherwise Court is satisfied from the material on record and from the evidence of the seizing authority that such seizure was genuinely made. (P.P.Fathima Vs State of Kerala) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 558 (S.C.)
Brown sugar – Sample – Sent for chemical examination – Shortage of 400 miligrams – Not explained by prosecution – Brass seal used for the purpose of sealing not produced – Witness who was given zima of brass seal not examined – No evidence on record as to whether the seized article was kept in safe custody before its production at the Laboratory – Malkhana register of Police Station not produced to show that entry was made regarding the seized articles – Conviction by trial Court – Order of conviction set aside. (Kedarnath Mallik @ Kedar Mallik Vs State) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 621 (Orissa)
Contraband – Recovery of – Seal with which the recovered article and samples were sealed not handed over to any public witness after sealing process was over and instead it was handed over to an official witness – This is highly improper – Person who had taken the sample for public analysis not examined to prove that he had not tampered with the sample – Prosecution has thus miserably failed to prove satisfactorily and beyond reasonable doubt that article recovered from accused was properly sealed, preserved and thereafter sent to chemical examination and that there was no tampering with the recovered article till the time it was taken up for chemical analysis. (Eze Val Okeke @ Val Eze Vs Narcotic Control Bureau) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 883 (Delhi)
Contraband – Recovery of – Superintendent NCB in his statement admitted that seized article could be taken out of the packets without disturbing the seals – It shows that sealing was not proper and as such possibility of tampering with the samples was there. (Eze Val Okeke @ Val Eze Vs Narcotic Control Bureau) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 883 (Delhi)
Heroin – Recovery of 600 grams in personal search of accused – Quantity recovered cannot be said to be small – Sentence of 14 years imprisonment awarded by trial Court and upheld in appeal – Calls for no interference. (Smt.Krishna Kanwar @ Thakuraeen Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 134 (S.C.)
Recovery of 18 Kgs. of “heroin” from the house of the appellant – Several doubts in the prosecution case in regard to the connection of the appellant with the premises in question, recovery of heroin from him, the possibility of tampering with the recovered article during the period it remained with the investigating agency, the non-production of a public witness and non-joining of neighbour – Testimony of Chemical Examiner that the samples which were analyzed by him were of white colour whereas the prosecution case is that the powder recovered from the appellant was of brown colour – Conviction set aside. (Eze Val Okeke @ Val Eze Vs Narcotic Control Bureau) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 883 (Delhi)
Recovery of 360 Kgs. of heroin from a field near International Border – No proof that accused was owner of the filed – Confession before custom officer not reliable – Accused knew Punjabi but confession recorded in Hindu and English words – Acquittal upheld. (State of Punjab Vs Amar Singh) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 345 (P&H)
Recovery of 750 mgs of brown sugar – Small quantity and commercial quantity – Notification dated 19.10.2001 which made distinction between small quantity and commercial quantity will not apply as offence was committed much earlier to issuance of notification. (P.P.Fathima Vs State of Kerala) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 558 (S.C.)
Seizure memo – Correction in name of accused – Initially accused gave his name as Kasinath Tripathy but on persistent questioning he stated that his real name is Sitaram Tripathy – Held, High Court without any justifiable reason disbelieved the explanation offered by the witnesses regarding correction of name. (State of Orissa Vs Rajendra Tripathy & Ors.) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 299 (S.C.)
Two reports one of Vidhi Vigyan Prayogshala and other of Opium Officer contradictory – Sample of sale not proved to have been sent to Chemical Examiner or Opium Inspector – One sample taken but two reports obtained – Alleged sample of seal not produced before Court for verification – Held, all these facts create serious doubt about guilt of accused – Accused acquitted. (Ram Sagar Verma Vs State) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 301 (All.)
Narcotic drug – Manufactured drug coming to 16% thereof – Held, any mixture of narcotic drug with any other substance whatever be the purity also comes within S.21 – Rate of purity is irrelevant. (Micheal Raj Vs Intelligence Officer) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 134 (Kerala)
Smack – Recovery of one kg. from three persons – Sample containing diacetylmorphine 1.12%, 1.2% and 1.24% – Percentage of diacetylmorphine is not relevant for ascertaining the quantity of drug or psychotropic substance recovered is small, commercial or in between – Any preparation weighing more than 250 gram containing diacetylmorphine of whatever potency it may be, falls within the limits of commercial quantity and righour of S.37(1)(b) apply. (Yogesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs State) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 777 (Delhi)
Conscious possession – Recovery of heroin from accused which they were carrying in a car – Held, accused were in conscious possession – Possession in a given case need not be physical possession but can be constructive, having power and control over the article – Once possession is established the person who claims that it was not a conscious possession has to establish it, because how he came to be in possession is within his special knowledge. (Gurinder Singh Vs Union Territory, Chandigarh) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 961 (P&H)
Confessional statements – One day delay in recording – Recovery of 66 Kgs. of heroin by Officers of Revenue Intelligence Department – No allegation of torture or harassment made before the Magistrate before whom they were produced – Accused not knowing Tamil language and a Hindi knowing officer has to be arranged – Confessional statement cannot be said to be involuntary. (M.Prabhulal Vs Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 494 (S.C.)
Heroin – Recovery of 66 Kgs. by Officers of Revenue Intelligence Department – Independent witnesses not joined – It is inconsequential when confessional statement of accused is found to be voluntary. (M.Prabhulal Vs Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 494 (S.C.)
Recovery of 5 kgs. of heroin – Accused acted as courier and was not a member of organized gang of smugglers – Sentence reduced from 15 years to 10 years. (Huma Parveen Vs Intelligence Officer) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 424 (P&H)
Recovery of 130 grams of Heroin – Matter exclusively triable by Special Court – Additional District Magistrate has no jurisdiction to entertain bail application and grant bail. (The State of Mizoram Vs Zoliana) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 108 (Gauhati)
Amendment – Lesser punishment for smaller quantities – Applicability to pending appeal – Amended provisions not applicable to pending appeals – However, sentence reduced from 12 years to 10 years in the facts and circumstances of the case. (Adul Salam Yusuf Sheikh Vs State of Gujarat) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 287 (S.C.)
Contraband – Conscious possession – Accused carried his father having a bundle in his hand on a scooter to a place where they both were allegedly arrested by police – No material to show that the accused was having knowledge of the contents of the bundle that it contained contraband – Held that conscious possession not proved. (Narcotics Control Bureau, Jodhpur Vs Murlidhar Soni & Ors.) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 339 (S.C.)
Narcotic drugs – Drugs being manufactured drugs are not covered under the provisions of NDPS Act – FIR quashed. (Baljit Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 04 (P&H)
Recovery of 10,000 disphenoxylate hydrochloride tablets – Petitioner a salesman of a licensed chemist and it is natural for him to keep the drugs with him manufactured by an established company – Accused is not supposed to carry licence with him while travelling – Charge against him, quashed. (Ajit Kumar Vs State of Punjab) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 356 (P&H)
Confession – Statement u/s 108 of Customs Act – Custom Officer need not to follow the safeguard of S.164 Cr.P.C. – Entire idea behind this provision is that the officer questioning the person must gather all the truth concerning the episode – If for instance the statement so extracted is untrue, its utility for further investigation gets lost. (Mohinder Singh alias Minda Vs Inspector Customs) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 475 (P&H)
Confession – Recovery of contraband effected by custom officer – Statement of accused recorded by custom officer – Absolute bar of S.25 Evidence Act is not application to Custom Officer as he is a person other than a Police Officer – Court has just to see as to whether the inculpating portions were made voluntarily or whether they were made on account of duress, coercion or physical threat etc. (Mohinder Singh alias Minda Vs Inspector Customs) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 475 (P&H)
Conscious possession – Two bags of contraband recovered from house of accused lying behind wheat chaff – Wife of accused consciously knew that accused, her husband, had kept those bags – Knowledge of contents cannot be attributed to her – Conviction set aside giving benefit of doubt. (Mohinder Singh alias Minda Vs Inspector Customs) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 475 (P&H)
Contraband – Recovery by custom officer – Statement of accused u/s 108 of Custom Act not on record – Accused cannot be held guilty on basis of statement of co-accused. (Mohinder Singh alias Minda Vs Inspector Customs) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 475 (P&H)
Sentence – Reduction – Accused paid Rs.10,000/- for keeping the contraband in his house and he himself was not a member of racket – Sentence reduced from 15 years to 12 years. (Mohinder Singh alias Minda Vs Inspector Customs) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 475 (P&H)
Recovery from truck – Owner was in jail at the time of recovery – Trial Court will decide whether truck was used with the connivance knowledge of the owner – Bail allowed. (Jit Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 320 (P&H)
Poppy husk – Recovery from a truck – Prosecution of owner of truck – No evidence that owner of truck knowingly permitted the use of truck for transportation of poppy husk as required u/s 25 – Conviction set aside. (Gurmail Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 297 (P&H)
Poppy husk – Recovery from a truck – Truck remained parked at barrier for 5 days – Sufficient evidence not brought on record to show that no one tampered with truck during said period – Possibility of bags of poppy husk having been loaded in the truck could not be ruled out. (Gurmail Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 297 (P&H)
Opium – Recovered from car – Owner is liable for commission of offence if he knowingly permitted the use of vehicle for commission of offence – Onus is on owner to establish that he had no knowledge of use of vehicle. (Pawan Mehta Vs The State) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 544 (Delhi)
Opium – Recovered from car – Owner of car not able to show how the car came in possession of accused persons – Owner guilty of offence under S.25 NDPS Act. (Pawan Mehta Vs The State) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 544 (Delhi)
Poppy husk – Recovery from truck – Conviction of truck owner – Onus lies heavily on the owner of the vehicle to prove that he did not have the knowledge at all as to what was being transported therein – Truck owner in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. nowhere stated that he did not have the knowledge that the poppy husk was being transported in the truck – Held, truck owner rightly convicted. (Jarnail Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 180 (P&H)
Heroin – Recovery of two cigarettes containing 500 mg each of heroin – It can be inferred that the same was possessed for personal consumption – Conviction altered from Ss.8 r/w S.21 to S.27 of the Act. (Alpesh Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 496 (S.C.)
Recovery of small quantity of narcotic or psychotropic substances – It is for accused to prove that it was meant for his personal consumption and not for sale or distribution. (Ayub Khan Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 480 (RAJASTHAN)
Opium – Recovery of 45 Kgs. while carrying it in a tractor – Three accused convicted – Owner of tractor acquitted as prosecution failed to prove that owner knowingly allowed the accused to use his tractor for transporting the contraband which onus was on prosecution. (Major Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 776 (P&H)
Parole to convict under NDPS Act – Parole does not amount to suspension, remission or commutation of sentence and as such the convict cannot be deprived of benefit of parole in the garb of S.32A of the Act – Prayer of persons convicted under NDPS Act can be considered only under Rules framed in that regard by Central Govt. – Union of India to frame rules and provide guidelines for releasing convicts of NDPS Act – Guidelines provided till rules are framed. (State of Rajasthan Vs Mana Singh) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 18 (Rajasthan)
Presumption – Prosecution has to prove conscious possession of accused in respect of contraband before a presumption could be raised. (Bhagwan Dass Vs State of H.P.) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 226 (H.P.)
Opium – Recovery – Two accused travelling in a jeep – Bag containing opium recovered which was lying in between them on seat of jeep – Prosecution failed to prove who was in conscious possession – Conviction set aside. (Raj Kumar Vs State of Punjab) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 368 (P&H)
Bail – Contraband – Recovery of commercial quantity – Charge sheet not filed within statutory period of 180 days – Public Prosecutor not seeking further time for investigation – Accused is entitled to bail even if recovery is commercial quantity. (Subodh Kundu Vs State of Calcutta) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 505 (Calcutta)
Bail – Limitations imposed under section 37 (1) (b) – Scope – Limitations on granting Bail u/s 37 (1) (b) are in addition to the limitation under Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. (Customs, New Delhi Vs. Ahmadalieva Nodira ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 312 (S.C.)
Anticipatory bail – Dismissal of bail application twice earlier – Concealing this fact from Court – Application dismissed for no fresh ground for anticipatory bail – Cost of Rs.20,000/- imposed for not coming to Court with clean hands. (Harmail Singh Vs Punjab State) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 566 (P&H)
Poppy husk – Recovery of 40 Kg. – It is more than small quantity but less than commercial quantity – Accused was granted interim bail – Anticipatory bail allowed taking into account the legislative interdict and shift in the sentencing policy and the liberalization of the rigid conditions governing the grant of bail. (Sulakhan Vs State of Punjab) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 708 (P&H)
Bail – 700 gms. smack – Recovery of – Accused (a lady) already in jail for four years – Interim bail granted – No offence committed by her during interim bail – Bail granted u/s 37 NDPS Act. (Mangna Vs The State) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 556 (Delhi)
Bail – Offence under NDPS Act – Accused opted to be searched before Magistrate – However, accused searched in presence of Naib Tehsildar who is not a Magistrate – Recovery was effected on receipt of secret information but information was not reduced to writing and not sent to superior officer as required – Bail allowed. (Balkar Singh Vs State of Haryana) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 503 (P&H)
Bail – Power of High Court – When bail is to be granted on merits only then provision of S.37 NDPS Act operate – When bail is to be granted on other circumstances or humanitarian ground like the medical ground, powers of High Court u/s 438 Cr.P.C. are not curtailed – Provision of S.37 NDPS Act does not act as a blanket ban on the powers of the High Court under S.439 of Cr.P.C. (Syed Abdul Ala Vs Narcotic Control Bureau, South Zone, Chennai) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 579 (Karnataka)
Bail – Recovery of 61 Kgs. of poppy husk from the plot – No person arrested at the spot – The plot from where the alleged recovery was effected, not abutting the house of the petitioner – Bail allowed. (Gurdev Singh alias Pappu Vs State of Punjab) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 896 (P&H)
Bail – Recovery of 120 grams of charas – Not a commercial quantity – Bail allowed – Provision of S.37 NDPS Act not applicable. (Rajbir Vs State of Haryana) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 442 (P&H)
Charas – Recovery of 1 Kg. – Falls under “Commercial Quantity” – Accused in custody since long and trial to take considerable time – Accused directed to be enlarged on bail. (Rajinder Vs State of Haryana) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 384 (P&H)
Charas – Recovery of 1.5 Kg. – It is commercial quantity – However, it is not such a huge quantity which should deny the petitioner bail – Bail allowed. (Hem Raj Vs State of Punjab) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 80 (P&H)
Charas – Recovery of 2 kg. – It is commercial quantity – Accused convicted and sentenced to 10 years RI and to pay fine of Rs.one lakh – Even though it is commercial quantity, but sentence suspended during pendency of appeal – Sentence of fine also suspended to the extent of Rs.90,000/- out of one lakh. (Ramesh Vs State of Haryana) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 140 (P&H)
Contraband – Recovery from more than one accused – Grant of bail – Quantity recovered cannot be divided equally between them for determining whether the quantity recovered can be termed as small, less than commercial or commercial quantity. 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 303 (P&H) Overruled. (Bhupinder Singh alias Bhinda Vs State of Punjab) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 396 (P&H)
Opium – Bail – Accused gave option to be searched in presence of Magistrate but searched in presence of a Gazetted Officer – Search not proper and the same is illegal – Bail allowed without commenting on merits. (Puran Singh Vs State of Haryana) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 321 (P&H)
Poppy husk – Recovery of 100 Kgs. – Bail – Sought on the ground that provisions of Ss.50, 52 and 57 not complied with – Bail refused – 100 Kgs. of poppy husk is a commercial quantity – Limitations of S.37 cannot be ignored and it is premature to say whether provisions of Sections 50, 52 and 57 were contravened. (Bhola Singh alias Bhola Vs State of Haryana) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 73 (P&H)
Poppy husk – Recovery of 30 Kgs. – Recovery of poppy husk less than 50 Kgs. not “commercial quantity” – S.37 of the Act does not apply to such recoveries – Bail in such cases is governed by S.439 of Cr.P.C. – Bail granted. (Brij Lal Vs State of Haryana) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 6 (P&H)
Recovery of 72 kgs. of poppy husk from two persons – At best it can be said that each one of them was in possession of 36 kgs. – This is below the commercial quantity – Bail allowed. (Kala Singh alias Kalu Vs State of Haryana) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 303 (P&H)
Accused a lady who is in jail for six months – Heavy recovery – Co-accused already acquitted – Bail allowed in view of exceptional circumstances. (Melo Vs State of Punjab) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 333 (P&H)
Bail granted on the ground that mandatory provisions of Ss.50 & 42 not complied – Bail cancelled – For grant of bail Court has to consider the provision of S.37 under which bail can be granted where Court finds that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. (State of H.P. Vs Munshi Ram) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 574 (H.P.)
Bail – Recovery of huge quantity of “Diazepam” 5 mg. Tablets – Confession by accused – Bail granted by High Court – Appeal by State – Limitations on granting of bail come in only when the question of granting bail arises on merits – Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of alleged offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail – Conditions are cumulative and not alternative in nature – Reasonable grounds means something more than prima facie grounds – High Court completely overlooking the underlying object of Section 37 – Report of the Central Revenue Control Laboratory lightly brushed aside by High Court without any justifiable reason – Does not appear to be a case where it could be reasonably believed that the accused was not guilty of the alleged offence – Bail cancelled. (Customs, New Delhi Vs. Ahmadalieva Nodira ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 312 (S.C.)
Poppy husk – Recovery of 12 bags each weighing 40 Kgs. – Accused already booked in two cases of similar nature – Recovery is ‘commercial quantity’ – As mandatory conditions laid down in S.37 are not satisfied as such bail refused. (Amrit Pal Garg @ Bamba Vs State of Punjab) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 712 (P&H)
Smack – Recovery of 20 grams from a foreign national – Accused already in custody for about 8 months – Accused released on bail. (Sartori Livio Vs State (Delhi Admn.)) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 831 (Delhi)
Juvenile when accused of an offence under NDPS Act – He is entitled to bail. (Gopu Dlaiah Vs State of Andhra Pradesh) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 204 (A.P.)
Arrest under NDPS Act – Bail – Accused not eligible for bail u/s 37 of NDPS Act – Court can however grant bail by invoking proviso (1) to S.437(1) Cr.P.C. when Court is satisfied that it is just and proper to do so. (Gopu Dlaiah Vs State of Andhra Pradesh) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 204 (A.P.)
Growing of ganja plants – No evidence that accused were owners of the field – Accused allowed bail. (Gopu Dlaiah Vs State of Andhra Pradesh) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 204 (A.P.)
Juvenile when accused of an offence under NDPS Act – He is entitled to bail. (Gopu Dlaiah Vs State of Andhra Pradesh) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 204 (A.P.)
Offence under NDPS Act punishable for five years or more – Bail – Accused cannot be granted bail unless limitations contained u/s 437 and 439 Cr.P.C. and Section 37 of NDPS are satisfied – Limitations contained in S.37(1) of NDPS Act are in addition to limitations enjoined under Cr.P.C. – Limitations in Cr.P.C. have to be read alongwith limitations in S.37(1) so long as they are not inconsistent with S.37(1). (Gopu Dlaiah Vs State of Andhra Pradesh) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 204 (A.P.)
Offence under NDPS Act – Bail – Limitations on grant of bail under NDPS Act is in additional to limitations under Cr.P.C. (Harjit Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 597 (P&H)
Bail – Non compliance of order passed for supply of copies to accused – Not a ground to grant Bail – Limitations placed by section 37 are to be satisfied – Case not covered by exception given in section 37 – Bail cancelled. (Narcotics Control Bureau Vs Dilip Pralhad Namade) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 496 (S.C.)
Bail – Limitations placed under 37 (1) (b) – Opportunity be given to public prosecutor to oppose bail – Limitations on granting of bail come in only when the question of granting bail arises on merits – Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of alleged offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail – Conditions are cumulative and not alternative in nature – Reasonable grounds means something more than prima facie grounds – Bail cancelled. (Narcotics Control Bureau Vs Dilip Pralhad Namade) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 496 (S.C.)
Bail – Limitations – Public prosecutor must have opportunity to oppose the bail – Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of alleged offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. (Customs, New Delhi Vs. Ahmadalieva Nodira ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 312 (S.C.)
Bail – “Reasonable Grounds” – Reasonable grounds means something more than prima facie grounds – It contemplates substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. (Customs, New Delhi Vs. Ahmadalieva Nodira ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 312 (S.C.)
Bail – “Reasonable Grounds” – Means something more than prima facie grounds – It contemplates substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. (Narcotics Control Bureau Vs Dilip Pralhad Namade) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 496 (S.C.)
Opium – Recovery of 7 Kgs. – Bail – It is commercial quantity – Accused is not entitled to bail on the ground that he was not habitual offender and there is no previous case against him – This fact by itself is not enough to overcome the mandatory bar of S.37(1)(b). (Harjit Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 597 (P&H)
Poppy husk – Recovery of – Bail allowed to accused on plea of accused that case was engineered falsely by police. (Gurmit Singh @ Mita Vs State of Punjab) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 292 (P&H)
Conviction – Appeal against – Bail – Court has power to grant bail – However, the same should be done only and strictly subject to the conditions spelt out in section 37 of the Act. (Union of India Vs Mahaboob Alam) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 101 (S.C.)
Offence under Ss.8(c) r/w 21(a) of NDPS Act – Complaint not filed within 180 days – Accused is entitled to bail if application for extension of time was not filed by prosecution u/s 36A(4) or if application for extension was filed after the filing of application by accused for bail. (Radhakrishnan Vs State by Inspector of Police) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 711 (Madras)
Poppy husk – Recovery of 30 Kg. – Bail – Recovery effected in presence of Naib Tehsildar who was not a Magistrate – Bail allowed without commenting on merits of the case. (Sikander Singh Vs State of Haryana) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 492 (P&H)
Reduction in sentence – Applicable only to cases which are pending trial and not cases pending before appellate court in appeal. (Palayan Vs State of Kerala) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 331 (Kerala)
Small quantity of contraband seized – Amendment Act came into force during pendency of case – Held, case has to be disposed of in accordance with the amended Act. (Salahuddin Vs State of Kerala) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 261 (Kerala)
Warrant of arrest issued by Special Magistrate – Contention that power to issue warrant vests only in the Magistrate and not in the Special Court – Not tenable – S.41 does not take away power vested in special Court by S.36A of the Act. (Md.Malek Mondal Vs Pranjal Bardalai & Anr.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 824 (S.C.)
Search – By a constable under the instructions of SHO – It is an unauthorised and illegal search as constable is not an authorised officer u/s 41 or 42 of the Act. (Ayub Khan Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 480 (RAJASTHAN)
Search and seizure by Gazetted Officer – Mandatory requirement of forwarding information to his immediate superior official not necessary – Act reposes more trust on a Gazetted Officer. (M.Prabhulal Vs Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 494 (S.C.)
Search and seizure – Police officers of and above the rank of Sub Inspector to exercise power u/s 42 of the Act – Notification is valid – Need not be placed before the Legislature and formalities for making rules u/s 78 need not be complied with and such an officer need not be a station officer. (Sasi Vs State of Kerala) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 262 (Kerala)
Empowered officer – Has the power of entry into and search any building, conveyance or place, break open door, remove obstruction, seize contraband, detain, search and arrest any person between sunrise and sunset in terms of S.42(1) – In case of emergent situation, these powers can be exercised even between sunset and sunrise without obtaining a search warrant or authorization, in terms provided in the proviso to sub-section (1) of S.42 – S.42(2) is a mandatory provision. (M.Prabhulal Vs Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 494 (S.C.)
Heroin – Recovery of 600 grams in personal search of accused who was pillion rider on a motorcycle which was driven by co-accused – Conviction – Challenged on ground of non compliance of provision of S.42 – Accused apprehended on prior secret information – To attract provision of sub-section (2) of S.42 commission of act or concealment of document etc. must be in any building, conveyance or enclosed place – Concurrent findings of Courts below that there was compliance of S.42(2) of the Act in the sense that requisite document were sent to superior officer – No substance in plea that there was violation of S.42(2) of the Act. (Smt.Krishna Kanwar @ Thakuraeen Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 134 (S.C.)
Information given to police that something is to be smuggled in India – Police held Naka – Two accused apprehended – On search 20 packets of heroin recovered and each packet weighed one kg. – In the facts of the case, provision of S.50 does not apply. (Durgo Bai & Anr. Vs State of Punjab) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 237 (S.C.)
Information given to police that something is to be smuggled in India – This is not specific information within meaning of provision of S.42 – No violation of S.42 if information is not reduced in writing. (Durgo Bai & Anr. Vs State of Punjab) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 237 (S.C.)
No evidence that secret information recorded in writing was given to superior officer within 72 hours of its receipt – Non compliance of mandatory provision of S.42 – Vitiates trial. (Shyamasundar Palei Vs State of Orissa) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 277 (Orissa)
Officer concerned having telephonic information that his immediate senior coming to meet him and report handed over to him immediately – Held, there is substantial compliance with the provisions of S.42 of the Act. (Maheswari Vs Jaideep) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 70 (Kerala)
Provision applies only when empowered officer has reasons to believe from personal knowledge or information regarding existence of incriminating substance – When police was on routine preventive checking and apprehended accused in possession of charas, provision of S.42 is not attracted. (Ian Roylance Stillman Vs State of H.P.) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 417 (H.P)
Provision applies when commission of offence is in any building, conveyance or enclosed place. (Rajendra & Anr. Vs State of Madhya Pradesh) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 206 (S.C.)
Recovery memo of opium and motor cycle prepared by SHO holding temporary charge – Held, SHO holding permanent charge of concerned Police Station alone is competent to exercise power u/s 42 – Proceedings vitiated – Conviction set aside. (Bherulal Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 20 (Rajasthan)
Recovery of contraband on receipt of secret information by Police – Provisions of S.42 of the Act not complied with – Held, it is not fatal when case was proved by other evidence led by prosecution. (Kaaraka Singh Vs State of Haryana) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 182 (P&H)
Search and seizure – When made by Gazetted Officer himself, checks incorporated in Section 42 are not available to accused. (Jagbir Singh Vs Union of India) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 162(Rajasthan)
Search – Empowered officer himself was present for search which had taken place before sunrise at 2 A.M. at flat belonging to accused – Held, there was no necessity of his obtaining permission in that behalf. (Wilberg Peter Torbjorn Florentin Vs Inspector of Customs) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 569 (BOMBAY)
Secret telephonic message recorded that charas was being transported in car – Recovery from car in which appellants were travelling – Copy of daily diary regarding receipt of information delivered to reader of Superintendent of Police – It was due compliance of provisions of S.42 of the Act. (Madan Lal & Anr. Vs State of Himachal Pradesh) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 361 (S.C.)
Section 42 comprises of two components – One relates to the basis of information i.e. (i) from personal knowledge (ii) information given by person and taken down in writing – The second is that the information must relate to commission of offence punishable under Chapter IV and/or keeping or concealment of document or article in any building, conveyance or enclosed place which may furnish evidence of commission of such offence – Unless both the components exist Section 42 has no application – Sub-section (2) only comes into operation where the officer concerned does the enumerated acts, in case any offence under Chapter IV has been committed or documents etc. are concealed in any building, conveyance or enclosed place. (Rajendra & Anr. Vs State of Madhya Pradesh) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 206 (S.C.)
Poppy husk – Recovery from house after sun set on basis of disclosure statement of accused – Search warrant in such a case is not required. (Jaswant Singh alias Jassa Vs State of Haryana) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 643 (P&H)
Poppy husk – Recovery on secret information – Secret information received a day earlier but the same not sent to superior officer – It is non compliance of S.42(1) – Conviction set aside. (Karnail Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 474 (P&H)
Search of house after 8 p.m. – Warrant or authorisation not obtained – Reasons also not recorded – As mandatory requirement of law is violated, conviction set aside. (Hiralal Vs Union of India) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 933 (Rajasthan)
Secret information – Not required to be recorded in writing in every case – Secret information received that a truck was carrying opium and if Nakabandi is held then opium can be recovered – Nakabandi held and on search of truck 38 Kg. opium recovered – Secret information not reduced in writing – Held, where a general secret information is received by police that if a Nakabandi is held, then some narcotic can be recovered then there is no requirement that such information be reduced in writing. (Jarnail Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 244 (P&H)
Deputy Commissioner of Police did not propose to enter into and search the building where contraband was suspected to be available – Not incumbent upon him to reduce the information into writing – No violation of S.42(2) justifying acquittal of accused on that ground. (Ravi Vs State) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 70 (Ker.)
Information that accused was standing in the waiting shed attached to a bus stand which is a public place – Compliance with S.42(2) not necessary. (Musthafa Vs State of Kerala) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 449 (Kerala)
Provision is mandatory in nature – Non compliance thereof creates doubt in the fairness of the prosecution story.(Surja Ram Vs State of Rajasthan) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 177(Rajasthan)
S.42 would be applicable only in cases where the information received by the officer relate to availability of the contraband in a building, conveyance or enclosed place and if the information relates to availability of contraband in a place other than these three say in a public place, S.42(2) would not be applicable. (Palayan Vs State of Kerala) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 331 (Kerala)
Poppy husk – Recovery of 80 quintals – Secret information – Receipt of secret information not conveyed to Superior Officer as I.O. immediately proceeded to the place disclosed in the secret information – Communication was not possible as he was on motion for apprehending accused – Where an empowered gazetted officer conducts search, arrest and seizure, provisions of S.42(2) of the Act are not applicable. (Teja Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 778 (P&H)
Question as to compliance of provision of section 42 – Complaint cannot be quashed on this ground – This is a question of fact which can be gone into on appreciation of evidence that may be adduced. (Md.Malek Mondal Vs Pranjal Bardalai & Anr.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 824 (S.C.)
Contraband – Recovery from a vehicle searched at a public place – Requirement of proviso to S.42 is not required to be complied with as recovery was made a public place – Additionally as S.P. was a member of search party and was exercising his authority u/s 41 of the Act as such proviso to S.42 is not attracted. (State of Haryana Vs Jarnail Singh & Ors.) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 542 (S.C.)
Seizure of contraband from truck parked at public place on receipt of secret information – Joining of independent witnesses – As recovery is of Rs.8.75 crores as such huge quantity cannot be planted from personal resources of raiding party and as recovery was effected on cold winter midnight as such it was difficult to find out a witness – Even otherwise general apathy of public at large is well known and independent witness always feel shy and does not come forward to join the investigation for various reasons. (Tarlochan Singh Vs The Assistant commissioner, Customs) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 184 (P&H)
Seizure of contraband from truck parked at public place on receipt of secret information – Seizure is not from any building, conveyance or enclosed place – When seizure is at public place, investigating officer is not required to reduce the information in writing – Provisions of S.43 and not of S.42 will apply. (Tarlochan Singh Vs The Assistant commissioner, Customs) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 184 (P&H)
SHO received information regarding contraband – He himself has to reduce the information in writing rather than transmitting the same to Superior Officer. (Ram Bharosi Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 118 (Rajasthan)
SHO received information regarding contraband – The same not reduced into writing nor a copy sent to Superior Officer – This is complete non compliance of the mandatory provision of S.42 of the Act – Whole trial as well as the conviction stands vitiated. (Ram Bharosi Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 118 (Rajasthan)
Private person – Can arrest an accused and produce before a Police Officer – Provisions of NDPS Act are supplemental to the provisions of Cr.P.C. and not derogatory to them. (Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.43 & 46). (Saleem Vs State of Kerala) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 55 (Kerala)
Poppy husk – Recovery on secret information – Ruqa sent and FIR registered – However, in FIR it was not indicated that information regarding registration of case was sent to superior police officers – Held, provisions of S.42 of the Act not complied with – Conviction set aside on this ground. (Mella Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 119 (P&H)
Recovery of poppy husk from a truck – S.50 of the Act does not apply as recovery was effected from a public place – Provisions of S.42 of the Act has no application – It is S.43 which applies to the present case. (Harpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 818 (P&H)
Distinction – If the recovery is not on prior information and the place from where it is effected is a public place it is S.43 which is applicable and S.42 is applicable where recovery is effected from a building, conveyance and enclosed place. (Jayantilal Modi Vs State of Maharashtra) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 484 (Bom.)
Recovery of Charas 800 grams and opium 50 grams on search when accused was travelling in three wheeler and had a bag in his lap which contained contraband – Prior secret information was received before accused was apprehended – S.43 is attracted when contraband was recovered while in transit – S.42 of the Act is not attracted – Conviction could not be disturbed. (Nagender Vs The State of Himachal Pradesh) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 55(H.P.)
Secret information – Recovery of contraband at a public place – It is necessary for the Investigating Officer to reduce the information in writing and send copy of the same to superior officer – Provisions of S.42 NDPS Act will apply. (Jayantilal Modi Vs State of Maharashtra) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 484 (Bom.)
Poppy husk – Recovery from truck – Search of truck at public place – If truck is searched at a public place then officer making search is not required to record the satisfaction as contemplated by the proviso to S.42 of the Act for searching the vehicle between sunset and sunrise. (Hans Raj alias Hansa & Ors. Vs State of Punjab) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 402 (P&H)
Both the provisions are mandatory in nature – Non compliance thereof is fatal to prosecution. (Prahlada Ram Vs State of Rajasthan) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 594 (Rajasthan)
Sub Inspector on probation – He is a member of service duly appointed – He is covered by the notification empowering Sub Inspectors of Police u/ss 42 & 67 of NDPS Act. (Euler Waldemar Vs State of Kerala) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 156 (Kerala)
Secret information – Should be taken down in writing – If secret information is acted upon on unrecorded information, it may not vitiate the trial but unrecorded statement would become suspect – Nonetheless the resultant position would be one of causing prejudice to the accused. (Jaswant Singh alias Jassa Vs State of Haryana) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 643 (P&H)
Search and seizure in between sunset and sunrise – If empowered officer has reason to believe that a search warrant or authorisation cannot be obtained without affording opportunity for the concealment of evidence or facility for the escape of an offender, he may enter and search such building, conveyance or enclosed place at any time between sunset and sunrise after recording the grounds of his belief. (Shanker Lal Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 623 (Rajasthan)
Recovery of 5 kgs. of heroin – Search conducted by Officer of Revenue Intelligence on receipt of secret information – Failure to place on record copy of secret message is not fatal as S.68 of the Act allows an officer to refuse to disclose the source of his information. (Huma Parveen Vs Intelligence Officer) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 424 (P&H)
Recovery of poppy husk from a truck – Ruqa sent to police station after 13 hours – As the accused were arrested at the spot they cannot take any benefit of the delay in sending the ruqa to the police station. (Harpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 818 (P&H)
Search by DSP (Gazetted Officer) – DSP gave option of search before himself or Magistrate – DSP did not inform the accused that he has a right of search before Gazetted Officer or Magistrate – Held, provision of S.50 NDPS Act not complied with – Conviction set aside. (Ram Bharosi Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 118 (Rajasthan)
Search in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate – Accused not apprised of his right – Accused was told that if he wished, his search would be taken in the presence of any person known to him but he declined – Conviction quashed. (Basavraj @ Bablu Yallapa Vs State of Maharashtra) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 534 (Bom.)
Search of suitcase – Cannot be treated as search of the person – S.50 not applicable – Provision is applicable only when there is search of a person. (Sangadan Subrahmanyam Vs State of Andhra Pradesh) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 545 (A.P.)
‘Person’ – The term “person” shall essentially include what he directly possesses on his person at the relevant time – Such item has to be at his person and cannot be, thus, at a distance or in a manner which would segregate the same from his body. (Mohan Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 623 (P&H)
Bag carried by accused – Search of – Amounts to personal search – Bag carried in hand, shoulder or head does not become luggage – Search of a sling bag handing on the body amounts to personal search to which S.50 applies – When mandate of S.50 is flouted then conviction is not sustainable. (Lachhu @ Laxmi Narain & Anr. Vs Union of India) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 185(Rajasthan)
Chance recovery – Still I.O. is obliged to take recourse to the provisions of the NDPS Act in relation to search and seizure from the stage he had suspicion that the accused was carrying contraband substance. (Shambhu Ram Vs The State of Haryana) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 342 (P&H)
Chance recovery of contraband on personal search of accused – Provisions of S.50 not attracted. (Wilberg Peter Torbjorn Florentin Vs Inspector of Customs) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 569 (BOMBAY)
Charas – Recovered from bag carried by accused – Personal search also made, but nothing incriminating recovered – As recovery was effected from bag and not from person, provisions of S.50 NDPS Act will not apply. (Ramesh Kumar Vs State of Himachal Pradesh) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 504 (H.P.)
Charas – Recovery of 40 grams – Accused apprehended from market area but no independent witness from locality joined – Failure to join local independent witness may be an irregularity which by itself does not vitiate trial – Serious doubt about option memo prepared on spot before effecting search of accused – Accused cannot be said have been given option to get himself searched in presence of Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, if so desired by him – It was non compliance of mandatory provisions of S.50 of the Act which vitiates trial. (Sandeep Kumar Vs State of H.P.) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 62 (H.P.)
Charas – Recovery of 70 grams – Interception of accused was on suspicion and per chance – Non compliance of provisions of Section 50 of the Act would not vitiate conviction. (Man Mohan alias Bhuri Vs State of Uttaranchal) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 465 (Uttaranchal)
Compliance of – Two police officers whose integrity not challenged, corroborated each other – They categorically stated that provision of S.50 was complied with by informing both accused about their right to be searched in presence of Gazetted Officer or Magistrate – Panchanama also specifically mentioned about compliance of S.50 – Provision of S.50 complied with – Appeal dismissed. (Abdul Gafoor Usman Gani Vs State of Maharashtra ) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 785 (Bombay)
Compliance of S.50 of the Act – When there is grave doubt about compliance of mandatory provision of S.50 of Act, conviction cannot be sustained. (Brahmananda Rout Vs State of Orissa) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 208 (Orissa)
Contraband – Chance recovery – If there is chance recovery of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substance during a search, compliance of S.50 does not arise – However, the empowered officer should, from that stage proceed to carry out the investigation in accordance with other provisions of NDPS Act. (Durgo Bai & Anr. Vs State of Punjab) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 237 (S.C.)
Contraband – Recovered from a bag carried on head – It is search of a person – Accused has to be informed of his right of search either before Gazetted Officer or Magistrate – Information need not be in writing. (Mohan Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 623 (P&H)
Contraband – Recovery – Search and seizure – Imperative requirement on part of officer intending to search to inform person to be searched of his right that if he so choses, he will be searched in presence of gazetted officer or Magistrate – Evidence did not disclose compliance of provision of S.50 of the Act – Conviction set aside. (Shyamasundar Palei Vs State of Orissa) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 277 (Orissa)
Contraband – Recovery from a bag lying at a shortest possible distance from accused but not physically carried by accused – Provision of S.50 will not apply – It is not search of person. (Mohan Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 623 (P&H)
Contraband – Recovery from a vehicle – Compliance of S.50 is not attracted. (Gurinder Singh Vs Union Territory, Chandigarh) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 961 (P&H)
Contraband – Recovery from car in which accused were travelling – S.50 applies only in case of personal search of a person and does not extend to search of a vehicle or container or a bag or premises – Provision of S.50 not applicable. (Madan Lal & Anr. Vs State of Himachal Pradesh) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 361 (S.C.)
Contraband – Recovery of – Information given as to whether accused will like to be searched by searching officer or would like to be searched by any gazetted officer or by a Magistrate – Specific words are not required for compliance of the provision – Court has to see the substance and not the form of intimation – Requirement of the provision whether has been met is a question which is to be decided on the facts of each case and there cannot be any sweeping generalization and/or strait jacket formula – Held, in the instant case there is no substance in the plea that there was non compliance with the requirements of S.50 of the Act. (Prabha Shankar Dubey Vs State of Madhya Pradesh) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 317 (S.C.)
Contraband – Search – Made in presence of a gazetted officer or a Magistrate – Not sufficient – It is also not sufficient to just ask accused whether he would like to be searched in presence of a gazetted officer or a Magistrate – The requirement is to inform accused of his right to have his person searched in presence of a gazetted officer or a Magistrate. (Md.Sarfraj Vs State of Bihar) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 415 (Patna)
Contraband – Search – Offer of search must be complete but need not be in writing. (Mohan Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 623 (P&H) Contraband – Search – Option of search before Gazetted Officer given – Option of search before a Magistrate not given – Held, partial offer amounts to non compliance of the provision of S.50 of NDPS Act – Accused acquitted. (Jameela Vs State of Kerala & Anr.) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 713 (Kerala)
Contraband – Search of bag carried on shoulder or back – Applicability of provision of S.50 – Matter referred to a larger Bench. (State of Himachal Pradesh Vs Pawan Kumar) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 362 (S.C.)
Failure to mention one of he options by the police officer – In absence of evidence of prejudice it does not tantamount to violation of S.50. (Palayan Vs State of Kerala) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 331 (Kerala)
Gazetted Officer a member of the raiding party – Option of search in his presence – Not in consonance with S.50 of the Act. (Bhanwar Lal Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 433 (Rajasthan)
In a routine check of passengers of a train, accused was found in a frightened posture and found some article wrapped & tied around his waist – Accused taken to customs office and there such conducted in presence of Superintendent and recovery of Charas was made – Before making search in the customs office S.50 NDPS Act is required to be complied with – Fact that search was actually made in presence of a Gazetted Officer is not enough – Conviction is liable to be set aside. (Md.Sarfraj Vs State of Bihar) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 415 (Patna)
In case of general search or random search by official empowered/authorised under NDPS Act, S.50 is not attracted – But if in course of search they stumble on a contraband, from that point and onwards, they are required to comply with the procedure laid down in the NDPS Act. (Md.Sarfraj Vs State of Bihar) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 415 (Patna)
Magistrate – Means other than Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate. (Ashwinikumar Sarvansingh Chouhan Vs State of Maharashtra) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 173 (Bom.)
Non compliance of mandatory provision of S.50 – Neither evidence of P.W.1 who took personal search of appellant nor P.W.2 panch witness and even seizure panchanama mentioned about appellant having been apprised of his right u/s 50 – Held, conviction and sentence is liable to be quashed and set aside for non compliance of mandatory provision of S.50. (Yusuf Suleman Hattia Vs V.M.Doshi & Anr.) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 379 (Bom.)
Notice stated to be given but not recovered from possession of accused – The only inference that can be drawn is that the written notice was never served on the accused. (Bhanwar Lal Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 433 (Rajasthan)
Notice u/s 50 – Non compliance of mandatory provision – In the notice u/s 50 it was not mentioned that accused has right under the law to be searched before the Magistrate or Gazetted Officer – Mere asking accused to be searched in presence of Gazetted Officer or Magistrate would not suffice – Mandatory provision of law not followed – Accused acquitted. (Halki Bai Vs State of Madhya Pradesh) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 247 (M.P.)
Notice u/s 50 given to accused did not mention that accused had got a right to be searched before Magistrate or Gazetted Officer – It does not constitute due compliance of mandatory provision of S.50 of the Act – Conviction cannot be sustained. (Sheikh Ibrahim Vs State of Maharashtra) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 385 (Bombay)
On search of bag 13.5 Kg. opium recovered – Provisions of S.50 not applicable as only bag was searched. (Mahender Singh Vs State of Haryana) 2003(3) Criminal Court Ca
One gram brown sugar recovered from panni pudia which was in the hand of accused – Provision of S.50 is applicable – Provision not complied with – On this solitary ground trial is vitiated causing prejudice to the accused – Accused acquitted. (Raghuveer Singh Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 38 (Rajasthan)
Opium – Bag lying on front side between the seat of driver and of accused in a car – Opium was found on search of bag – Provision of S.50 not applicable – It was not a search of a person. (Pawan Mehta Vs The State) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 544 (Delhi)
Opium – Recovery from a ‘Thaila’ which accused was carrying in his hand – Compliance of S.50 is not required as it does not amount to search of a person. (Sawant Ram Vs State of Haryana) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 153 (P&H)
Opium – Recovery from a JHOLA tied to the handle of a moped – S.50 is not applicable as recovery is not effected from the personal search of the accused. (Des Raj Khanna Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 628 (P&H)
Opium – Recovery from a plastic bag which accused was carrying in his hand – Provision of S.50 not applicable – It is not search of person of accused but of something carried in his hand. (Pure Lal Vs State of Haryana) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 269 (S.C.)
Opium – Recovery from bag – Accused apprehended and taken to DSP – Opium recovered in presence of DSP – No independent witness joined – There is no reason to disbelieve the conduct of official witnesses. (Bachan Singh Vs State of Haryana) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 294 (P&H)
Opium – Recovery from bag – S.50 is not applicable as the provision does not extend to search of a vehicle or container or a bag or premises. (Bachan Singh Vs State of Haryana) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 294 (P&H)
Opium – Recovery from house of accused – Provision of S.50 not applicable. (Union of India Vs L.D.Balam Singh) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 380 (S.C)
Opium – Recovery of 500 grams from accused which he was carrying in a bag – Recovery not from personal search, provisions of S.50 do not apply. (Dharmendra Kumar Parmar Vs State of M.P.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 477 (M.P.)
Poppy husk – Recovery from house – Provision of S.50 is not applicable. (Jaswant Singh alias Jassa Vs State of Haryana) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 643 (P&H)
Poppy husk – Recovery of 18 bags carried in a bullock cart – Search – High Court set aside order of conviction by holding that there is non compliance of mandatory provision of S.50 of the Act – Provision of S.50 not applicable in case of search of premises, vehicles or articles – Order of acquittal passed by High Court set aside – Appeal allowed. (State of Punjab Vs Balbir Singh & Ors.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 822 (S.C.)
Poppy husk – Recovery of 5 bags – S.50 NDPS Act does not apply as poppy husk was found not on the person of the accused but was in 5 bags. (State of Punjab Vs Jagjit Singh) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 595 (P&H)
Provision applies in case of a personal search of a person – It does not extend to search of a vehicle or a container or a bag or premises. (Saikou Jabbi Vs State of Maharashtra) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 339 (S.C.)
Provision applies in case of personal search of a person – It does not extend to search of a vehicle or a container or a bag, or premises. (Megh Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 422 (S.C.)
Provision applies to personal search of a person and does not extend to search of a vehicle, container or bag or premises – No specific form is prescribed or intended for conveying the information required to be given – Accused to be made aware of existence of his right to be searched in presence of one of the officers named in the provision – Court has to see the substance and not the form of intimation – No specific words are necessary to be used to convey existence of the right. (Smt.Krishna Kanwar @ Thakuraeen Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 134 (S.C.)
Provision of S.50 applies in case of personal search of a person – It does not extend to search of a vehicle or a container or a bag, or premises. (State of Punjab Vs Balbir Singh & Ors.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 822 (S.C.)
Recovery of contraband carried in a truck/vehicle – Right of accused of search in presence of Gazetted Officer – Available only when person of accused is to be searched – When contraband is recovered from vehicle whereby it was being transported provision of S.50 is not attracted. (Dharminder Kumar Vs State of Punjab) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 605 (P&H)
Recovery of contraband from a bag carried in hand – Search of bag – Amounts to personal search – S.50 NDPS Act applies. (Zile Singh Vs State of Haryana) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 382 (P&H)
Recovery of four pouches of charas in a belt bag which accused was having around his waist – Recovery is a result of personal search of accused – Provision of S.50 of the Act is applicable. (Hira Giri alias Hardev Giri Vs State of Himachal Pradesh) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 681 (H.P.)
Search – ‘Search of a person’ – It does not include in its ambit the search of a bag, briefcase or any such article or container etc. which cannot be treated as body of a human being – They cannot even remotely be treated to be part of the body of a human being. (State of Himachal Pradesh Vs Pawan Kumar) 2005(1) Apex Court Judgments 514 (S.C.) : 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 358 (S.C.)
Search – ‘Search of a person’ – Person means a human being with appropriate coverings and clothings – Appropriate clothings include footwear also – A bag, briefcase or any such article or container, etc. cannot be treated as body of a human being and they are given a separate name and are identifiable as such – They cannot even remotely be treated to be part of the body of a human being. (State of Himachal Pradesh Vs Pawan Kumar) 2005(1) Apex Court Judgments 514 (S.C.) : 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 358 (S.C.)
Search – Accused informed of his right for search – The same not supported by independent witness nor the said version supported by any contemporaneous document like seizure panchanama – Held, it cannot be said that there was compliance with mandatory provision of S.50. (Wilberg Peter Torbjorn Florentin Vs Inspector of Customs) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 569 (BOMBAY)
Search – Apprising accused of his right of being taken to a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate for search – It can be either oral or in writing. (Hira Giri alias Hardev Giri Vs State of Himachal Pradesh) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 681 (H.P.)
Search – Choice of search in the presence of nearest available Gazetted officer or the nearest available Magistrate – Choice has to be exercised by the officer making the search and not by the accused. (State of Rajasthan Vs Ram Chandra) 2005(1) Apex Court Judgments 670 (S.C.) : 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 379 (S.C.)
Search – Compliance with the provision – No specific mode or manner is prescribed – Requirement of the provision is that accused should be made aware of existence of his right to be searched in presence of one of the officers named in the provision itself. (State of Rajasthan Vs Ram Chandra) 2005(1) Apex Court Judgments 670 (S.C.) : 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 379 (S.C.)
Search – Failure of searching officer to mention about both the alternatives to the suspect – Not established that prejudice is caused – Mention that he is entitled to be searched before a Gazetted Officer alone or the nearest Magistrate alone – Sufficient, substantial and adequate compliance of the mandatory provisions of S.50.(Marakkar Vs State of Kerala) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 10 (Kerala)
Search – In presence of a member of the raiding party who was a Gazetted officer – Provision of S.50 is breached. (Ram Chandra Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 623 (Rajasthan)
Search – Independent witnesses not joined as it was presumed that none would like to become party to the police proceedings – In absence of joining of independent witnesses search cannot be acted upon. (Ram Chandra Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 623 (Rajasthan)
Search – Not of person but of something carried in hand – Provision of S.50 in such a situation is not applicable. (State of Punjab Vs Makhan Chand) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 513 (S.C.)
Search – Notice in writing not given to accused giving him choice of search before Magistrate or gazetted officer – Oral notice not believed – Conviction set aside. (Bihari Lal Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 445 (Rajasthan)
Search – Offer of search given to accused as to whether he intended to get himself searched from the investigating officer or through a gazetted officer – Accused never informed that he had the right to get himself searched before a Magistrate – Offer made is not as per provision of S.50 of the Act. (Zile Singh Vs State of Haryana) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 382 (P&H)
Search – Offer of search must be complete but essentially need not be in writing. (Zile Singh Vs State of Haryana) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 382 (P&H)
Search – Option of search in presence of Magistrate given – Contention that search before Gazetted Officer or Magistrate not given as such there is non compliance with the provision of S.50 – Held, it is sufficient compliance of the provision of S.50 – S.50 of the Act does not show that accused has got a right of option either a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, rather option is for officer who conducts search. (T.T.Haneefa Vs State of Kerala) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 308 (S.C.)
Search – Person who searched the accused not examined – It poses a big question mark on the validity of notice u/s 50 of the NDPS Act. (Halki Bai Vs State of Madhya Pradesh) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 247 (M.P.)
Search – Provision applies in case of search of a person and not to search of a vehicle, container, bag or premises. (State of Rajasthan Vs Ram Chandra) 2005(1) Apex Court Judgments 670 (S.C.) : 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 379 (S.C.)
Recovery of “poppy husk” – Accused found to have been sitting on 15 bags containing 37 Kg of contraband – Plea of false implication not accepted in view of such large quantity of contraband – Superintendent of Police was associated with search – No explanation offered by accused – Order of acquittal set aside. (State of Punjab Vs Balwant Rai) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 486 (S.C.)Search – Recovery of 37 Kg of “poppy husk” – Accused alleged to have been sitting on 15 bags containing contraband – No case of personal search made out – S.50 will not be attracted – High Court erred in holding that provision of S.50 will apply. (State of Punjab Vs Balwant Rai) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 486 (S.C.)
Search – Recovery of Charas in a belt bag which accused was having around his waist – Recovery is as a result of personal search – Provision of S.50 of the Act is applicable – Conviction is liable to be set aside when there is no compliance with the provision. (Hira Giri alias Hardev Giri Vs State of Himachal Pradesh) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 681 (H.P.)
Search – Recovery of contraband – Accused was asked that he could be searched in the presence of some higher officer – Not put to accused that he had got a right to be searched in presence of some Gazetted Officer or Magistrate – It was desirable that he should have been searched in presence of some Gazetted Officer or Magistrate – Non compliance of S.50 – Accused acquitted. (Hukmi Vs State of Haryana) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 512 (P&H)
Search and seizure – Accused not made aware of his rights under S.50 of the NDPS Act nor given any option of search to be conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate – Mere presence of a Gazetted Officer who had accompanied the seizing official but not one of the Officers as mentioned in S.42 of the Act, is not sufficient – Held, accused is entitled to acquittal. (Nabeesa Beevi Vs State of Kerala) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 294 (Kerala)
Search and seizure – Magistrate brought to the scene of occurrence instead of taking accused to the place where Magistrate was available – No additional benefit will be available to the accused – Held, there is no violation of S.50 NDPS Act. (Salahuddin Vs State of Kerala) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 261 (Kerala)
Search and seizure – Search and checking was being conducted of the vehicles and it was during the course of this general search that the appellant was found travelling with the opium – Held, S.50 of the Act is not applicable. (Khet Singh Vs Union of India) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 363 (S.C.)
Search of a vehicle – S.50 of the act is not applicable – Moreso when there is no prior information regarding the contraband being carried in a vehicle and the recovery is result of checking the vehicle in normal course. (State of Haryana Vs Jarnail Singh & Ors.) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 542 (S.C.)
Search of bag – S.50 does not apply – Provision applies in case of personal search of a person. (Rajendra & Anr. Vs State of Madhya Pradesh) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 206 (S.C.)
Search of person and baggage – No recovery effected from person – Recovery of 5 kgs of heroin from baggage – Non compliance of S.50 not relevant as no recovery was effected from person of accused. (Huma Parveen Vs Intelligence Officer) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 424 (P&H)
When one voluntarily takes out the contraband articles, there arises no question of body being searched – There is no violation of S.50 of the Act. (Maheswari Vs Jaideep) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 70 (Kerala)
Appellant convicted and sentenced u/s 21 – Search of appellant conducted in violation of S.50 – Held, conviction and sentence vitiated. (Mohammad Ismail Vs State of Maharashtra) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 649 (Bombay)
Gazetted Officer before whom accused is to be taken for search cannot be Investigating Officer himself merely because he is a Gazetted Officer. (Mohammad Ismail Vs State of Maharashtra) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 649 (Bombay)
Notice given to accused apprising him of a provision relating to personal search in presence of Executive Magistrate or Gazetted Officer – Held, such notice does not apprise accused of his right but only points out the existence of such provision – Accused must be made aware of the right in clear, unambiguous and categorical terms that he has a right to get himself searched before the Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate and if he so desires he can be taken to a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. (Mohammad Ismail Vs State of Maharashtra) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 649 (Bombay)
Contraband – Search of plastic bag in hand of accused – Search of bag amounts to search of person of accused – Compliance with provision of S.50 is essential – Conviction set aside for non compliance of S.50. (Balu Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 637 (Rajasthan)
Bag – Carried in hand – Search of bag carried in hand does not amount to search of person of accused – Provision of S.50 is not applicable. (Mangi Lal Vs State of Haryana) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 409 (P&H)
Opium – Recovery from bag which accused carried under his armpit – It amounts to recovery from personal search – Requires compliance of S.50 – Conviction set aside for non compliance with provision of S.50. (Hanuman Vs The State of Haryana) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 596 (P&H)
Opium – Recovery – Search – Accused given offer of search before gazetted officer only – No offer of search before Magistrate given – It is partial offer – Accused also not informed that he has a right to get himself searched in presence of a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer – Accused acquitted due to non compliance of S.50. (Hanuman Vs The State of Haryana) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 596 (P&H)
Opium – Search made in presence of DSP – No violation of S.50 – There is no requirement that Gazetted Officer should not be of Police Department. (Ram Dayal Vs State of Haryana) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 36 (P&H)
Compliance of S.50 not mentioned in Recovery memo and Ruqa sent by I.O. – Fact of compliance of S.50 stated by I.O. for the first time in Court – Not believed – Conviction set aside. (Shambhu Ram Vs The State of Haryana) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 342 (P&H)
Search – Accused were asked that a Magistrate or GO could be arranged for taking their search if they so required – Held, this offer cannot be treated as communicating to the appellants that they had right under law to be searched before any of the said authorities. (Shakil Ahmad & Anr. Vs State) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 495 (DELHI)
Charas – Wrapped in a polythene and accused carrying it in his hand – It would be considered as recovery from person of accused – Non compliance of S.50 – Conviction set aside. (Ramphal @ Makkar Vs The State of Haryana) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 261 (P&H)
Detecting Officer unaware that there was possibility of contraband being available with the accused – Accidental exposure – Failure to comply with S.50 does not justify acquittal – Belated production of M.O.’s seized items not tampered with does not arouse any suspicion. (Dharman Vs State of Kerala) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 633 (Kerala) Heroin – Recovery from suit case at airport while suitcase was put on screening machine – This cannot be equated to be a recovery made from the person of accused by a personal search – S.50 not applicable. (Saikou Jabbi Vs State of Maharashtra) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 339 (S.C.)
Search – Apart from giving option of search in presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, third option of search before SHO also given – Held, third option is uncalled for and is capable of misleading the accused – Held, compliance of S.50 is improper and appellant is entitled to acquittal on this count. (Munnalal Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 686 (Rajasthan)
Search – Officer proposing to effect search cannot act in dual capacity i.e. first as an officer authorised u/s 42 to search a person and second as Gazetted Officer in whose presence the accused may opt to be searched. (State of Rajasthan Vs Ram Chandra) 2005(1) Apex Court Judgments 670 (S.C.) : 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 379 (S.C.)
Search at a public place – S.50 of the Act is applicable. (Ashok Kumar & Anr. Vs Union of India) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 96 (Rajasthan)
Woman – Search – Must be made by a female. (Shyama Bai Vs State of M.P.) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 267 (M.P.) Female – Search – To be searched by a female – Provision of S.50(4) is mandatory – Search of a female made by a male – Search is vitiated – Accused acquitted. (State of Punjab Vs Surinder Rani alias Chhindi) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 205 (S.C.)
Female offender – Search – Should be by a female officer who acts in accordance with instructions of the empowered officer albeit he is a male. (Amina Vs Circle Inspector of Police) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 31 (Kerala)
Search and seizure – Instructions issued by Narcotic Control Bureau – Though these instructions do not have the force of law yet the same should be followed by the officer-in-charge of the investigation of the crime coming within the purview of the NDPS Act. (Khet Singh Vs Union of India) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 363 (S.C.)
Charas – Recovery of – Independent witness not joined inspite of ample opportunity – A reasonable doubt and suspicion arises in the mind of Court about the genuinity of the recovery. (Ramphal @ Makkar Vs The State of Haryana) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 261 (P&H)
Delay of seven days in sending sample to Chemical Examiner – Seals were intact – Held, delay of seven days is inconsequential when no prejudice is caused to accused. (Jaswant Singh alias Jassa Vs State of Haryana) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 643 (P&H)
Link evidence – Affidavit tendered into evidence to prove link evidence – Deponent not present into Court on that day – Opportunity to cross examine deponent not available to accused – Affidavit not put to accused when he was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. – Held, report of Chemical Examiner cannot be acted upon as the possibility of tampering with the sample, after seizure and before analysis, cannot be ruled out – Accused acquitted. (Baldev Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 182 (P&H)
Provisions are directory – Violation does not vitiate the trial itself but failure to observe the provisions has relevant bearing on the question how much weight to be attached to evidence adduced. (Shyama Bai Vs State of M.P.) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 267 (M.P.)
As far as arrested and seizure by the officer in charge of the local police station is concerned, it is sufficient if the accused and the seized contraband are produced before the Magistrate. (Palayan Vs State of Kerala) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 331 (Kerala)
Provision of S.55 is directory and not mandatory – Searching Officer has an option to deposit the seized articles in the local police station – Empowering all officers of the Police Department of and above the rank of Sub Inspector and all officers in the Excise Department of and above the bank of Excise Inspector to exercise the powers u/s 42 and 67 of the Act – Is valid. (Sasi Vs State of Kerala) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 262 (Kerala)
Provisions of Ss.52 & 57 are not mandatory in nature – Accused has to show prejudice caused to him on account of their non compliance. (State of Punjab Vs Jaswant Singh) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 567 (P&H)
Accused arrested in a theft case – 20 bags of poppy straw recovered while searching house to recover stolen property – Provision of S.52(1) do not apply – Requirement of S.52(1) is that any official arresting a person under Ss.41 to 44 shall, as soon as, may inform him of the grounds of his arrest – As accused was already in custody as such nothing was left to be stated to accused disclosing grounds of arrest when recovery was effected from his house search. (Rohtas alias Bunder Vs State of Haryana) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 367 (P&H)
Recovery of 42 Kgs of Ganja – Provisions of Ss.52, 55 and 57 are directory in nature – In order to get the benefit, the accused must show that the prejudice has been caused to him. (Gaur Moni Singha Vs State of Assam) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 684 (Guwahati)
Sample – Kept by Empowered Officer himself till it was sent to Office of Chemical Analyser – Evidence given of Empowered Officer corroborated by other customs officers – Simply because sample was in his custody it cannot be said that doubt was created about tampering with same when the same was removed by other corroborating circumstances. (Wilberg Peter Torbjorn Florentin Vs Inspector of Customs) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 569 (BOMBAY)
Only if the possession of contraband article by accused is proved presumption under S.54 will arise and then only accused need to account for the possession. (State of Kerala Vs Arun Valenchery) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 355 (Kerala)
Presumption – If accused is found to be in possession of contraband then it is for him to account for such possession satisfactorily and if he is not in a position to give a satisfactory explanation the presumption u/s 54 of the Act would come into play – However, prosecution has to prove satisfactorily that the accused in fact is in possession of the contraband. (Gurdip Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 592 (P&H)
Charas – Possession – Charas concealed in the Jeep – Accused driver on salary – Whether accused was in conscious possession or not to be seen – Matter remanded to High Court for adjudication on above point keeping in view the provisions of Section 54 which raises presumption of possession. (Union of India Vs Munna) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 100 (S.C.)
Contraband – Case property not deposited with Moharrir Head Constable as SHO was not present in police station – Efforts not made to find out SHO – Senior Officer also not informed – Conviction set aside for non compliance of S.55. (Baldev Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 182 (P&H)
Heroin – Recovery of – Compliance of provision of S.55 – No argument raised before trial Court and High Court on this point – Evidence of I.O. about safe custody of the contraband have not been challenged or shaken in the cross-examination – Cannot be accepted that there was non compliance of requirements of S.55. (Saikou Jabbi Vs State of Maharashtra) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 339 (S.C.)
Opium – Case property deposited with MHC without producing the same before officer in charge of police station – It is non compliance of provisions of Ss.55 & 57 – Accused acquitted. (Sawant Ram Vs State of Haryana) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 153 (P&H)
Opium – Case property duly sealed and sent to Police Station and received by Moharrir Head Constable as SHO was on patrol duty – Though there was no strict compliance of S.55 but it will not damage the case of prosecution – Section 55 is directory and not mandatory – Accused was not able to show any prejudice caused to him on this account. (Hakikat Rai Vs State of Haryana) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 419 (P&H)
Opium – Recovery of 500 grams – Samples not drawn on spot in presence of panch witnesses – Prosecution failing to prove that SHO had sealed seized items and sample was taken by SHO – Non observance of provisions of S.55 of the Act is fatal lapse – Accused is entitled to get benefit – Conviction set aside. (Dharmendra Kumar Parmar Vs State of M.P.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 477 (M.P.)
Opium – Recovery of – SHO himself arrested the accused and got recovered the contraband from him – Sample was sealed with seal of ASI and handed over to M.H.C. – No illegality – S.55 will not apply where recovery was effected by Officer-in-charge of Police Station himself. (Des Raj Khanna Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 628 (P&H)
Sample – Seal – Sample to be affixed with seal of the officer and not that of police station. (Euler Waldemar Vs State of Kerala) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 156 (Kerala)
Recovery of charas – Sample – In absence of positive evidence that sample was taken from the same packet which was seized from possession of accused his conviction cannot be sustained. (Lal Babu Sah Vs State of Bihar) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 33 (Patna)
Charas – Recovery of – Case property deposited in Malkhana without first taking the same to Incharge of Police Station – This is violation of provision of S.55 – Provision of Section 55 though directory but taking into consideration other infirmities, accused acquitted. (Kapil Dev Vs State of Punjab) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 125 (P&H)
Contraband – Recovery of – Information sent to higher officer by Telegram – No evidence that a detailed report was sent to higher officer – Conviction set aside. (Bihari Lal Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 445 (Rajasthan)
Matter reported to Superior Officer and report handed over to him personally within 24 hours – Held, there is no violation of S.57 of the Act. (Maheswari Vs Jaideep) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 70 (Kerala)
No strict compliance of S.57 – No evidence that accused was prejudiced by the failure to comply with the Section – Not a ground for acquittal – S.57 is only directory. (Palayan Vs State of Kerala) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 331 (Kerala)
Secret information – Seizure of contraband and arrest of accused – Requirement of sending information to Senior Officer in terms of S.57 is directory which does not vitiate the trial or conviction – However I.O. cannot completely ignore this provision and such failure has a bearing on appreciation of evidence regarding arrest of accused or seizure of articles. (Jaswant Singh alias Jassa Vs State of Haryana) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 643 (P&H)
False case – In case any police officer falsely or vexatiously launches prosecution against any person, he can also be punished. (Major Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 776 (P&H)
Narcotic drug recovered from possession of accused who was riding the motorcycle – It is motorcycle which is used for carrying narcotic drug – On conviction of accused vehicle is liable for confiscation. (Chainram Vs Union of India) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 165 (M.P.)
Truck – Interim custody – Truck seized while transporting poppy straw – Offence u/s 8/15 NDPS registered against persons in possession of poppy straw – Even in absence of title the seized vehicle can be released in favour of the person, from whose possession it was seized, if he is not accused of the offence. (Kulvinder Kaur Vs State of Rajasthan) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 903 (Rajasthan)
Vehicle involved in offence under NDPS Act – Vehicle given to owner on Sapurdari – Provision of S.451 Cr.P.C. will apply. (Gurdev Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 81 (P&H)
Confiscation of vehicle used in carrying contraband – Acquittal of accused – Confiscation of vehicle has no relevance with the conviction of accused – Accused whether convicted, acquitted or discharged, Court can still order confiscation of vehicle used in carrying the contraband. (Santa Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 605 (P&H)
Confiscation of vehicle used in carrying contraband – Owner when not an accused – Vehicle cannot be confiscated without notice and opportunity to owner enabling him to take a defence that his vehicle is not liable to be confiscated and the same was so used without his knowledge and in spite of all precautions taken by him against such use – In support of his defence, he can also lead evidence – Order of confiscation of vehicle without such a notice, set aside. (Santa Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 605 (P&H)
Confessional statement – Retraction – Nature of force and coercion used or particulars of threats not mentioned in retraction – Merely because retraction was made on next day, confessional statement of accused does not lose credibility. (Wilberg Peter Torbjorn Florentin Vs Inspector of Customs) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 569 (BOMBAY)
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, National Security Act, 1980
Statement of accused recorded after institution of complaint and while in custody – Not admissible. (Lachhu @ Laxmi Narain & Anr. Vs Union of India) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 185(Rajasthan)
Statement recorded u/s 67 – Not admissible when proved to have been obtained under duress – Fracture of 10th rib suffered by accused during investigation – Plea of prosecution that injury might have been suffered due to a fall not accepted. (Narcotics Control Bureau, Jodhpur Vs Murlidhar Soni & Ors.) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 339 (S.C.)
Opium – Recovery of 8 kg. 600 gms. from cavity under the drivers seat in which four accused were found sitting – Three accused acquitted – Their acquittal not assailed – Allegations against all the four accused were the same – Nothing on record to establish that jeep in question was owned by appellant and he was in conscious possession of the opium – Prosecution has failed to establish the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction cannot be sustained. (Jagbir Singh Vs Union of India) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 162(Rajasthan)