MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Failure to Adequately Examine Accused under Section 313 of CrPC Leads to Acquittal in NDPS Case – Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a latest judgment that reinforces the importance of procedural adherence in criminal trials, the Supreme Court of India, led by Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, acquitted Nababuddin, an appellant in a narcotics case, underscoring the crucial role of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).

The case, Criminal Appeal No. 2333 of 2010, challenged the conviction of Nababuddin under the Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) for the alleged possession of 205 kilograms of poppy straw. The appellant, who had been sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and fined by the lower courts, brought his appeal before the Supreme Court, contesting the procedural irregularities in his trial.

Central to the Supreme Court’s decision was the inadequacy of the examination under Section 313 of CrPC during the trial. Justice Oka, in a critical observation, stated, “The failure to put material circumstances to the accused amounts to a serious irregularity.” This statement encapsulates the essence of the Court’s ruling, emphasizing the fundamental legal principle that every accused has the right to a fair trial, which includes being adequately confronted with the evidence against them.

The Court found that key allegations against Nababuddin, particularly regarding the possession of a railway receipt that implicated him in the crime, were not sufficiently explored during his examination under Section 313 of CrPC. This procedural lapse was deemed significant enough to prejudice the appellant’s defense.

Legal experts view this verdict as a cautionary reminder of the judiciary’s commitment to upholding procedural justice. It sends a strong message to trial courts about the necessity of thoroughness and precision in criminal proceedings, especially in cases involving serious charges under statutes like the NDPS Act.

Date of Decision: 24 November 2023

Nababuddin @ Mallu @ Abhimanyu VS State of Haryana

Latest Legal News