Showing : 271-280 of 1966 Results

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 42(1)-- Secret information - No attempt made to record the secret information nor any attempt made to send it in writing to the higher officer - Mandatory requirement not complied in regard to search, seizure and arrest of accused...........
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 57, 42(1)-- Written information about recovery not sent to higher police officers - Mandatory provision of S.57 of the Act not complied with...........
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 22(c)-- Wife examined as a defence witness - Evidence cannot be discarded merely on the ground of relationship - Truthfulness or otherwise depends upon facts and circumstances of each case...........
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 22(c), 42(1)-- Recovery from house - Witnesses could not state direction of the main door of house of accused and location from where the recovery was effected - Could not describe shape and size of the bag containing it - Contradictory and irreconcilable statement of prosecution witnesses - Accused acquitted...........
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 22(c)-- SDM conducted enquiry on complaint by wife that accused was falsely implicated - Enquiry report that accused was falsely implicated - Report discarded by trial Court on the ground that statements of police personnel were not recorded by SDM - Fact remains that inspite of publication in paper..........
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 35, 54-- Differences in sample colours - Trial Court is duty bound to get the difference explained by the prosecution...........
KERALA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 42, 43, 37(1)(b)(ii),, 21(c)-- Contraband - Seizure, its testing, sampling and preparation of mahazar - All acts need not to be done at the very place from where interception is made - Not violative of Ss.42 & 43 of the Act...........
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 37, 42-- Bail - Recovery of 120 Kgs. of buds of poppy husk - It is a commercial quantity - Raid conducted on a secret information - Non compliance of S.42 of the Act alleged but no prejudice shown except that it creates suspicion - Benefit of non compliance of provision of S.42 of the Act is available..........
KERALA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 21-- For applicability of the provision of S.21 NDPS Act, it is not always necessary that a person should be found to be in possession of the drug - If any of the ingredients of S.21 is satisfied, the offence would be complete...........
KERALA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 57(1)(b)(ii)-- Contraband - Bail - Both the conditions under sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) of sub-s.(1) of S.37 of the NDPS Act must be satisfied to enable the Court to grant bail to an accused in a case involving commercial quantity where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application for grant of bail...........

Showing : 271-280 of 1966 Results