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 Comply with Mandatory Procedural Requirements under NDPS Act Leads to Acquittal: Supreme Court Emphasizes on Due Process in Narcotics Cases

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India, presided over by Justices Aniruddha Bose and Augustine George Masih, acquitted Smt. Najmunisha and Abdul Hamid Chandmiya in a narcotics case, underlining crucial procedural lapses in search and seizure operations under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The decision, delivered on 9th April 2024, casts light on the importance of adhering to statutory safeguards in narcotics investigations.

The core issue of the judgment centers around the mandatory procedural compliance in search and seizure under the NDPS Act and the validity of confessional statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act.

 

Najmunisha and Abdul Hamid Chandmiya were convicted of narcotic substance possession and trafficking. Central to the appeals were questions regarding the compliance with Sections 41 and 42 of the NDPS Act during the search and seizure and the admissibility of confessional statements as per Section 67 of the NDPS Act.

 

Procedural Non-Compliance: The Court identified critical failures in the search and seizure process, including the lack of proper authorization and discrepancies in the raiding party’s testimony, leading to doubts about the prosecution’s integrity.

Confessional Statements Under Section 67: Aligning with the precedent in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Court held that statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are not confessional for trial purposes, as the officers recording these statements lack police investigation authority.

Upholding of Fundamental Rights and Fair Trial Principles: The judgment emphasized Article 21 of the Constitution, criticizing the investigation for not adhering to due process, thus affecting the credibility of the prosecution’s case and violating the accused’s fundamental rights.

The appellants were acquitted due to the noted procedural lapses and inadmissibility of crucial evidence, with the Court granting them the benefit of doubt.

Date of Decision: 9th April 2024

Smt. Najmunisha vs. The State of Gujarat & Narcotics Control Bureau

 

Latest Legal News