Apex Law Journal
Apex Law Journal
An online law journal reporting latest and important judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.                                                                                                                         Click here to get free legal updates via email                                                                                                                          Click here to download forms (Address Form, List Of Documents and Memorandum Of Appearance)
User Name :
Password :
New Subscriber
Forgot Password
 

Editor

Neha Goel, Advocate

Advisory Board

S.C. Khunger, Advocate

Rohit Bansal, Advocate

Varinder Singh Kanwar, Advocate

Hittan Nehra, Advocate

Judgments on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Thursday, July 28, 2011
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 21 and 50 — To secure a conviction under Section 21 of the Act, the possession of the illicit article is a sine qua non — Such contraband article should be recovered in accordance with the provisions of Section 50 of the Act, otherwise, the recovery itself shall stand vitiated in law.

 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 50 — An illegal search cannot entitle the prosecution to raise a presumption of validity of evidence under Section 50 of the Act. 

 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 50 and 21 — Contention that even if there is apparent default in compliance with the provisions of Section 50 of the Act, a person may still be convicted if the recovery of the contraband can be proved by statements of independent witnesses or other responsible officers, in whose presence the recovery is effected — Held, not tenable — Once the recovery itself is found to be illegal, being in violation to the provisions of Section 50 of the Act, it cannot, on the basis of the statement of the police officers, or even independent witnesses, form the foundation for conviction of the accused under Section 21 of the Act — What cannot be done directly cannot be permitted to be done indirectly.

 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 21 and 50 — Once the recovery is held to be illegal, that means the accused did not actually possess the illicit article or contraband and that no such illicit article was recovered from the possession of the accused such as to enable such conviction of a contraband article.

 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 50 — Compliance with the provisions of Section 50 is imperative and not merely substantial compliance.

 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 50 — An illicit article seized from the person of an accused during search conducted in violation of the safeguards provided in Section 50 of the Act cannot be used as evidence of proof of unlawful possession of the contraband on the accused, though any other material recovered during that search may be relied upon by the prosecution in other proceedings, against the accused, notwithstanding the recovery of that material during an illegal search — What needs to be understood is that an illegal recovery cannot take the colour of a lawful possession even on the basis of oral evidence.

 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 21 and 50 — In no event the illegal recovery can be the foundation of a successful conviction under the provisions of Section 21 of the Act.

 
Friday, June 10, 2011
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 50 — The requirement under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, held, is not complied with by merely informing the accused of his option to be searched either in the presence of a gazetted officer or before a Magistrate — The requirement continues even after that and it is required that the accused person is actually brought before the gazetted officer or the Magistrate — Further held, in order to impart authenticity, transparency and creditworthiness to the entire proceedings, an endeavour should be made by the prosecuting agency to produce the suspect before the nearest Magistrate — Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat 2010(3) S.L.J. (S.C.) 1801 relied.

 
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 2(xv)(a) and Section 2(xv)(b) — Recovery of opium — If it is opium as defined in clause (a) of Section 2(xv) then the percentage of Morphine contents would be totally irrelevant — It is only if the offending substance is found in the form of a mixture as specified in clause (b) of Section 2(xv) of NDPS Act, that the quantify of morphine contents become relevant.

 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 2(xv)(a) — Word ‘coagulated’ — Meaning of — Held, coagulated means solidified, clotted, curdled – something which has commenced in curdled/solid form.

 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Chemical analysis of the contraband material is essential to prove a case against the accused under the NDPS Act.

 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 2(xv) — In case the offending material falls in clause (a) then the proviso to Section 2(xv) would not apply — The proviso would apply only in case the contraband recovered is in the form of a mixture which falls in clause (b) thereof.

 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 2(xv)(a), 8 and 18(b) — Entry No. 92 — Recovery of opium — In case of pure opium falling under clause (a) of Section 2(xv), determination of the quantity of morphine is not required — Percentage of morphine is not a decisive factor for determination of quantum of punishment, as the opium is to be dealt with under a distinct and separate entry from that of morphine — Entry No.92 will be applicable in such a case.

 
Monday, April 25, 2011
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 — Section 25 — The sine qua non for the applicability of Section 25 is that the accused had knowingly permitted the use of the vehicle for any improper use.

 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 — Section 35 — It is only after the prosecution had discharged the initial burden to prove the foundational facts that Section 35 would come in to play — Section 35 also presupposes that the culpable mental state of an accused has to be proved as a fact beyond reasonable doubt and not merely when its existence is established by a preponderance of probabilities.

 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 — Sections 15 and 25 readwith Section 35 — No evidence against the apellant other than that he was the co-owner of the truck used for transporting Narcotics and that he had given a wrong address while purchasing the truck — Whether presumption under Section 35 can be drawn against the appellant? — Held, no — In the absence of any evidence with regard to the mental state of the appellant no presumption under Section 35 can be drawn — Appeal allowed — Judgments of the Courts below set aside — Apellant acquitted.

 
Tuesday, November 09, 2010
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 50 — The mandate of Section 50 is precise and clear, viz. if the person intended to be searched expresses to the authorised officer his desire to be taken to the nearest gazetted officer or the Magistrate, he cannot be searched till the gazetted officer or the Magistrate, as the case may be, directs the authorised officer to do so.

 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 50(6) — Subsection (6) of Section 50 of the NDPS Act makes it imperative and obligatory on the authorised officer to send a copy of the reasons recorded by him for his belief in terms of sub-section (5), to his immediate superior officer, within the stipulated time, which exercise would again be subjected to judicial scrutiny during the course of trial.

 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 50, sub-sections (5) and (6) — Fexibility in procedural requirements in terms of the two newly inserted sub-sections (5) and (6), held, can be resorted to only in emergent and urgent situations, contemplated in the provision, and not as a matter of course.

 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 50(1) — In so far as the obligation of the authorised officer under sub-section (1) of Section 50 of the NDPS Act is concerned, it is mandatory and requires a strict compliance — Failure to comply with the provision would render the recovery of the illicit article suspect and vitiate the conviction if the same is recorded only on the basis of the recovery of the illicit article from the person of the accused during such search — Thereafter, the suspect may or may not choose to exercise the right provided to him under the said provision.

 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 50 — Though Section 50 gives an option to the empowered officer to take such person (suspect) either before the nearest gazetted officer or the Magistrate but in order to impart authenticity, transparency and creditworthiness to the entire proceedings, in the first instance, an endeavour should be to produce the suspect before the nearest Magistrate, who enjoys more confidence of the common man compared to any other officer — It would not only add legitimacy to the search proceedings, it may verily strengthen the prosecution as well.

 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 50 — The question whether or not the procedure prescribed has been followed and the requirement of Section 50 had been met, is a matter of trial — It would neither be possible nor feasible to lay down any absolute formula in that behalf.

 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 50 — Concept of “substantial compliance” — This Court, held, is of the opinion that the concept of “substantial compliance” with the requirement of Section 50 of the NDPS Act introduced and read into the mandate of the said Section in Joseph Fernandez [(2000) 1 SCC 707] and Prabha Shankar Dubey [(2004) 2 SCC 56] is neither borne out from the language of sub-section (1) of Section 50 nor it is in consonance with the dictum laid down in Baldev Singh’s case [(1999) 6 SCC 172].

 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 50 — Whether Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 casts a duty on the empowered officer to ‘inform’ the suspect of his right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, if he so desires or whether a mere enquiry by the said officer as to whether the suspect would like to be searched in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer can be said to be due compliance with the mandate of the said Section? — Held, Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 casts a duty on the empowered officer to ‘inform’ the suspect of his right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate — Further held, the insertion of sub-sections (5) and (6) does not obliterates the mandate of sub-section (1) of Section 50 to inform the person, to be searched, of his right to be taken before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate.

 
Monday, September 06, 2010
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Discrepancy in weight of sample — Two sample of 50 gms. each were taken and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination, but net weight of the sample received in the laboratory was 65.5606 gms — Held, difference of 15 gms. in weight, in the facts & circumstances of this case, is not of much significance — Sample was taken by a common weighing scale and weight found in a grocery shop, whereas the weight in the laboratory recorded with precision scale.

 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 50 — Provision of Section 50, held, comes into play only when search of a person other than vehicle etc. is taken — Further the authorized officer is to apprise person about to be searched to be taken to the nearest Gazetted Officer or to the Magistrate, if the person about to be searched so requires — Such an option was given to the appellants and, in our opinion, it is nothing but apprising them of their right.

 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 50 — As the recovery, in the present case, has been from the vehicle, the provision of Section 50 of the Act, held, was not required to be complied with.

 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 20 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sections 313 and 315 — Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant Dinesh Kumar cannot be held to be in conscious possession of the Charas as he had taken lift in the vehicle and he was not aware of the fact that Charas was being transported in the vehicle — In this connection he had referred to the statements of the appellants recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure — Both of them had specifically pleaded that this appellant had taken lift in the car — According to the learned counsel for the appellant if this explanation is accepted, this appellant deserves to be acquitted — Held, there is no substance in this submission — Appellant Dinesh Kumar cannot be acquitted only on the basis of the statements of the appellants under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. — Further held, appellants have not chosen to examine any other witness to support this plea and in case none was available they were free to examine themselves in terms of Section 315.

 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 20 — To bring the offence within the mischief of Section 20 of the Act possession has to be conscious possession.

 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 35 and 54 — Presumption of conscious possession — Held, section 35 of the Act recognizes that once possession is established the Court can presume that the accused had a culpable mental state, meaning thereby conscious possession — Further the person who claims that he was not in conscious possession has to establish it — Presumption of conscious possession is further available under Section 54 of the Act, which provides that accused may be presumed to have committed the offence unless he accounts for satisfactorily the possession of contraband.

 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 50 — Contention that though option was given to the appellant to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or nearest Magistrate but they were not apprised of their right to be searched in their presence and hence the procedure followed does not fulfill the requirement of Section 50 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Held, not tenable — Option to choose is given to an accused when he has right to choose — It is communication of right either to accept or reject. 

 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Discrepancy in weight individually may not be fatal — Noor Aga vs. State of Punjab and another, 2008(16) SCC 417 relied.

 
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 15 — Conscious possession — Contention of the learned counsel for respondent that merely because the respondents were sitting on the bags it could not be said that they were in conscious possession of the bags — Held, presence of the accused respondents at such an early hour, i.e., 8.00 a.m. near a religious place with such large number of bags and their sitting on them and on seeing the police party their conduct of trying to hide themselves behind the bags prove and establish that they were in possession of the aforesaid bags.   

 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Delay of seven days in sending the samples to the Forensic Examiner — Effect thereof — Held, delay itself would not be fatal to the prosecution case — Hardip Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2008) 8 SCC 557 relied.

 
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 42 — Information about the accused having possessed of and dealing with contraband — Held, when such an information or intimation or knowledge comes to the notice of the Investigating officer in course of the regular patrolling or an investigation of some other offence, it is not necessary to follow in all cases the conditions incorporated in Section 42.

 
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 2(iii)(b) — “Ganja” — Held, there is nothing in the NDPS Act to suggest that when the weight of a quantity of Ganja is to be ascertained, the moisture content has to be separately ascertained and excluded — The weight of the contraband would be the weight taken at the time of seizure.  

 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 2(iii)(b) — “Ganja” — Ganja seized, in the present case, consisted of a greenish brown colour leafy and flowery parts of the plant (in moist condition) — Whether weight of the seeds and leaves have to be excluded while weighing the seized “Ganja” ? — Held, no.

 
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 37 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 439 — Granting of bail — Held, power to grant bail to a person accused of having committed offence under the NDPS Act is not only subject to the limitations imposed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it is also subject to the restrictions placed by sub-clause (b) of subsection (1) of Section 37 of the NDPS Act — Apart from giving an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor to oppose the application for such release, the other twin conditions viz; (i) the satisfaction of the Court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence; and (ii) that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, have to be satisfied — It is manifest that the conditions are cumulative and not alternative — The satisfaction contemplated regarding the accused being not guilty, has to be based on “reasonable grounds” — The expression ‘reasonable grounds’ has not been defined in the said Act but means something more than prima facie grounds — It connotes substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence he is charged with — The reasonable belief contemplated in turn points to existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. [Vide Union of India vs. Shiv Shanker Kesari (2007) 7 SCC 798] — Thus, recording of satisfaction on both the aspects, noted above, is sine qua non for granting of bail under the NDPS Act.

 

 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 37 — Bail — Held, while considering an application for bail with reference to Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the Court is not called upon to record a finding of ‘not guilty’ — At this stage, it is neither necessary nor desirable to weigh the evidence meticulously to arrive at a positive finding as to whether or not the accused has committed offence under the NDPS Act — What is to be seen is whether there is reasonable ground for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence(s) he is charged with and further that he is not likely to commit an offence under the said Act while on bail — The satisfaction of the Court about the existence of the said twin conditions is for a limited purpose and is confined to the question of releasing the accused on bail.

 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 37 — In the present case, learned judge granted bail on the ground :

(i) that nothing has been found from the possession of the respondent; 

(ii) that he is in jail for the last three years and;

iii) that there is no chance of his appeal being heard within a period of seven years. 

Held, the stated circumstances may be relevant for grant of bail in matters arising out of conviction under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 etc. but are not sufficient to satisfy the mandatory requirements as stipulated in sub-clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 37 of the NDPS Act — Merely because, according to the Ld. Judge, nothing was found from the possession of the respondent, it could not be said at this stage that the respondent was not guilty of the offences for which he had been charged and convicted — Impugned order having been passed ignoring the mandatory requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, it cannot be sustained — Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted back to the High Court for fresh consideration of the application filed by the respondent for suspension of sentence and for granting of bail, keeping in view the parameters of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.  

 
Sunday, February 03, 2008
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 67 — Statement under Section 67 — Whether would attract the bar both of Sections 24 to 27 of the Evidence Act as also Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India? — Held, as long as such statement was made by the accused at a time when he was not under arrest, the bar under Sections 24 to 27 of the Evidence Act would not operate nor would the provisions of Article 20(3) of the Constitution be attracted — It is only after a person is placed in the position of an accused that the bar imposed under the aforesaid provision will come into play — Evidence Act, 1872, Sections 24 to 27 — Constitution of India, 1950, Article 20(3).

 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 53 — Evidence Act, 1872, Section 25 — An officer vested with the powers of an Officer-in-Charge of a Police Station under Section 53 of the NDPS Act is not a 'Police Officer' within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act.

 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 67 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 161 — Evidence Act, 1872, Sections 24 to 27 — Held, a statement made under Section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act is not the same as a statement made under Section 161 of the Code, unless made under threat or coercion — It is this vital difference, which allows a statement made under Section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act to be used as a confession against the person making it and excludes it from the operation of Sections 24 to 27 of the Evidence Act.

 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 67 read with Section 42 — Evidence Act, 1872, Sections 24 to 27 — Since an officer for the purposes of Section 67 of the NDPS Act read with Section 42 thereof, is not a police officer, the bar under Sections 24 and 27 of the Evidence Act cannot be attracted and the statement made by a person directed to appear before the officer concerned may be relied upon as a confessional statement against such person.

 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 67 — Conviction can be maintained solely on the basis of a confession made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act.

 
Friday, December 14, 2007
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 24 and 29 — Information Technology Act, 2000, Section 79 — Appellant charged for offences under Sections 24 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, on the ground that appellant had used network facilities provided by his companies for arranging the supply of banned psychotropic substances on line — Whether appellant could seek protection under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000? — Held, no — Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, will not grant immunity to an accused who has violated the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, as this provision gives immunity from prosecution for an offence only under Technology Act itself.

 
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 — Section 50 — Word “Person” — Scope and ambit — A bag, briefcase or any such article or container, etc. can, under no circumstances, be treated as body of a human being — 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 — Depending upon the physical capacity of a person, he may carry any number of items like a bag, a briefcase, a suitcase, a tin box, a thaila, a jhola, a gathri, a holdall, a carton, etc. of varying size, dimension or weight — However, while carrying or moving along with them, some extra effort or energy would be required — They would have to be carried either by the hand or hung on the shoulder or back or placed on the head — In common parlance it would be said that a person is carrying a particular article, specifying the manner in which it was carried like hand, shoulder, back or head, etc. — Therefore, it is not possible to include these articles within the ambit of the word "person" occurring in Section 50 of the Act.

 
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1995 — Section 42 — In a case where the police officer on patrol duty stops the vehicle in transit in a public place and conducts search and seizure, Section 42, held, has no application — 2004 (5) SCC 188 relied.

 
Friday, July 14, 2006
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 50 — Contraband found from the plastic bag, which the respondent-accused was carrying — Whether provisions of S.50 of the Act are attracted ? — Held, no — Section 50 of the Act would be applicable only in a case of personal search of the accused and not when it is made in respect of some baggange like a bag, article or container etc. which the accused at the relevant time was carrying — Appeal allowed. 

 
Act Topic
Rule Citation
Keyword
 
Free Text Search
 
Follow us on :
(Best view with 1024x768 Resolution)
© All rights including Copyrights and rights of translations etc, reserved and vested exclusively with Deepak Publications. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronics, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, or stored in any retrival system of any nature without the written permission of the copyright owner.

By using this site, you (and any entity on whose behalf your are acting) are consenting to be bound by Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy & Disclaimer Clause.