LawforAll

▼
Showing posts with label NDPS ACT. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NDPS ACT. Show all posts
Thursday, January 24, 2013

The appellant has neither been successful in rebutting the statutory presumption of the existence of culpable mental state under Section 35 of the Act nor has he been able to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, the statutory exception provided under Section 60(3) of the Act, before both the Courts below.; except that the appellant is a disabled person and, therefore, the disability of the disabled person, which is a vital factor, operating in his favor, so as to determine his culpability vis-à-vis the use of his canter by A1 to A3 for indulging in transportation of the contraband substances has to be considered. 5. The aforesaid issue which we have noticed in our order, was not canvassed by the appellant either before the Trial Court or before the High Court and, therefore, we cannot permit the appellant to raise the said issue for the first time before us. Having said so, we have still looked into the disability certificate so produced by the appellant before this Court. The certificate would only show that one of the appellant's legs is amputated and, therefore, there is 60% physical disability. The factum of a person being physically disabled does not imply that he would accord his permission to the use of his vehicle for an offence punishable under the provisions of the Act and, therefore, in our opinion, the submission of the learned counsel is devoid of any merit and, thus, is liable to be rejected.

›
                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION                       CRIM...
Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Section 15 of the NDPS Act speaks about punishment for contravention in relation to poppy straw. As per sub-section (a) where the contravention involves small quantity, the rigorous imprisonment may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees or with both whereas under sub- section (b) where the contravention involves quantity lesser than commercial quantity but greater than small quantity, rigorous imprisonment may extend to 10 years and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees. Sub-section (c) provides that where the contravention involves commercial quantity, the rigorous imprisonment shall not be less than 10 years but which may extend to 20 years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees. – owner of the car which was involved in the offence, possession of commercial quantity, FSL report which shows that the contraband is poppy straw and is a prohibited item, we are in entire agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court. Further, taking note of the fact that the quantity involved is 70 kgs. of poppy straw which is more than a commercial quantity, the Special Judge rightly imposed minimum sentence and fine in terms of Section 15(c) of the NDPS Act. We are in agreement with the said conclusion.

›
                                     REPORTABLE                         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                        CRIMINAL...
Monday, July 25, 2011

NDPS ACT. COMMERCIAL QUANTITY We, therefore, hold that the accused is liable to be convicted under Section 21(b) and not under Section 21(c) of the Act as, on the relevant date, he was found in possession of 125 grams of heroin which is less than the commercial quantity as prescribed under the Act. The maximum punishment prescribed for the offence under Section 21(b) of the Act is rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees.

›
                                              1                                                                                REPORTA...
Thursday, July 7, 2011

Ingenuity of counsel sometimes results in formulation propositions, which appear at the first flush to be legally sound and relatable to recognized cannons of criminal jurisprudence. When examined in greater depth, their rationale is nothing but illusory; and the argument is without substance. One such argument has been advanced in the present case by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant who contends that `even where the provisions of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') have not been complied with the recovery can otherwise be proved without 2 solely relying upon the personal search of the accused'. According to the learned counsel, the courts are required to take into consideration evidence of recovery of illicit material independently of the factum of personal search of the accused as stated by other witnesses as such evidence would be admissible and can form the basis for conviction of an accused in accordance with law.

›
                                         REPORTABLE             IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA           CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTIO...