Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

Entire Weight of Contraband to Be Considered – Punjab and Haryana HC Denies Bail in NDPS Act Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a significant ruling, has dismissed the bail petition of Sanjay Upadhya, involved in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). Justice Deepak Gupta, presiding over the matter, held that the entire weight of the recovered material, including seeds when accompanied by the flowering tops, should be considered in NDPS cases. This ruling came in the backdrop of a detailed analysis of the definition of ‘ganja’ under the NDPS Act.

The case, CRM-M-44787 of 2023, reserved on January 12 and pronounced on January 16, involved the petitioner, Sanjay Upadhya, who was arrested for the illegal sale and possession of ganja. As per the prosecution, Upadhya was found with 2 Kg and 30 Kg of ganja in two separate instances. The petitioner’s counsel argued for non-compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act and contended that the seized material, which included seeds, did not fall under the Act’s definition of ganja.

However, the High Court observed, “It is clear on bare perusal of the afore-said definition of ‘ganja’ that seeds and leaves are excluded from the definition of ganja, only when the same are not accompanied by the tops.” This interpretation effectively meant that the full weight of the material recovered from the petitioner was subject to consideration under the NDPS Act.

The Court also noted the petitioner’s criminal history, mentioning that he is a habitual offender dealing in drug trafficking. “These details contained in the custody certificate in itself are sufficient to show that the petitioner is a habitual offender dealing in drug trafficking,” Justice Gupta remarked.

Referring to similar judicial decisions, the Court reinforced its stance on the interpretation of the NDPS Act. This ruling is expected to have significant implications in how cases under the NDPS Act are adjudicated, especially concerning the definition and weight considerations of ganja.

Date of Decision: 16.01.2024

Sanjay Upadhya VS State of Punjab

 

Latest Legal News