Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 42 -- Opium - Recovery from dicky of motorcycle of accused - Accused apprehended from outside the house - S.42 of the Act does not apply - It is S.43 which is attracted...........
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 8, 18 -- Opium - Recovery of 5.500 kg. - Independent witnesses turning hostile - Testimony of official witnesses can be relied if they are found to be trustworthy - Testimony of police officials fully corroborated by FSL report and documents of search and seizure - Accused convicted...........
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 57 -- Opium - Recovery of 5.500 kg. - Provision of S.57 is directory and not mandatory - Even otherwise in the instant case evidence to show that documents were prepared on spot and were placed for perusal to Additional S.P. which is sufficient compliance of S.57 of the Act - Trial Court erred in holding that..........
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 8, 15 -- Poppy straw - Recovery of 519 kgs. - Non production of case property in Court - Not a procedural irregularity - It is fatal to the prosecution with regard to establishing the identity of a thing which is relevant in the case...........
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 8, 15 -- Poppy straw - Recovery of 519 kgs. - Non production of case property in Court - Not a procedural irregularity - It is fatal to prosecution - Presumption would be against prosecution u/s 114(g) of Evidence Act - Seals on deposited articles in the Malkhana not proved - Sample not taken from all the bags..........
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 18 -- Opium - Recovery of - Place of recovery doubtful - It fortifies the contention of accused that recovery is made to falsely implicate the accused...........
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 18 -- Opium - Recovery of - Incharge of malkhana a member of raiding party - Non compliance of Ss.41, 42, 50, 55 & 57 of the Act creating heavy doubt as to truthfulness of investigation - Place of recovery also doubtful - Motbirs of recovery turning hostile - Doubt also as to which sample of what quantity was..........
Evidence Act, 1872, Section 115 -- Estoppel - Suit for possession and recovery of damages on account of use and occupation of land -Plaintiffs claimed the suit land on the basis of their title - Defendants denied ownership of plaintiffs - Claimed themselves to be owner in possession of the suit land - In jamabandi status of defendants recorded as Gair Marusi tenants -..........
General Clauses Act, 1897, Section 3(8), Limitation Act, 1963, Article 112 -- Telephone - Bill - Non payment - Limitation - BSNL is a company incorporated under the Companies Act - BSNL is a separate and distinct entity from the Central Government - Article 112 Limitation Act is not applicable - Limitation to file suit for recovery of arrears of bill is three years and not..........
Limitation Act, 1963, Article 112 -- BSNL - Not falls within the expression 'Central Government' as defined u/s 3(8) of General Clauses Act - Article 112 provides limitation in respect of suit filed by Central Government - Suit for recovery by BSNL not governed by Article 112 - General Clauses Act, 1897, Section 3(8)...........
