Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

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