The Indian judiciary is an important pillar of criminal Justice System. Various Judgments pronounced on different aspects take form of case laws and become the guiding force for the law enforcement agencies. Eg. Recent landmark Judgment by the Hon’ble Apex Court in state of Kerala vs. Rajesh where the Hon’ble Court has cited twin condition for releasing accused on bail in NDPS matters has a bearing effect on enforcement of NDPS Act and prosecution.
The Apex Court directed that in lieu of the statutory provisions contained in Section 36 A (4) laid down the principle of extension of the statutory period and a particular procedure to be followed for the same.
Compliance of section 41 by electronic media like wireless Etc...... In other words, the compliance with the requirements of Section 42(1) and 42(2) in regard to writing down the information received and sending a copy thereof to the superior officer, should normally precede the entry, search and seizure by the officer. But in special circumstances involving emergent situations, the recording of the information in writing and sending a copy thereof to the officer superior may get postponed by a reasonable period, that is after the search, entry and seizure. The question is one of urgency and expediency.
Compliance of section 41 by electronic media like wireless Etc...... In other words, the compliance with the requirements of Section 42(1) and 42(2) in regard to writing down the information received and sending a copy thereof to the superior officer, should normally precede the entry, search and seizure by the officer. But in special circumstances involving emergent situations, the recording of the information in writing and sending a copy thereof to the officer superior may get postponed by a reasonable period, that is after the search, entry and seizure. The question is one of urgency and expediency.
“a conviction, in our opinion, should not be based merely on the basis of a statement made under Section 67 of the Act without any independent corroboration particularly in view of the fact that such statements have been retracted” In this case, the Trial Court had convicted accused persons after placing reliance solely on statements recorded under Section 67. The High Court acquitted the accused persons. The High Court also observed that the statements made by one accused cannot be read against the other co-accused. The Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the observations of the High Court.
In Noor Aga v. State of Punjab (2008)16 SCC 417 the Apex Court observed that there should be substantial compliance of the provisions of control over and disposal of the narcotics.
It appears from the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Amending Act of 2001 that the intention of the legislature was to rationalize the sentence structure so as to ensure that while drug traffickers who traffic in significant quantities of drugs are punished with deterrent sentence, the addicts and those who commit less serious offences are sentenced to less severe punishment. Under the rationalised sentence structure, the punishment would vary depending upon the quantity of offending material. Thus, we find it difficult to accept the argument advanced on behalf of the respondent that the rate of purity is irrelevant since any preparation which is more than the commercial quantity of 250 gms. and contains 0.2% of heroin or more would be punishable under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act, because the intention of the legislature as it appears to us is to levy punishment based on the content of the offending drug in the mixture and not on the weight of the mixture as such.
All rights reserved / Disclaimer / Website Policy
