District Judiciary Retirement Age | Supreme Court Directs Enhancement To 62 Years To Arrest Attrition Of Judicial Talent Slogans Inciting Armed Rebellion Or Challenging Sovereignty Cannot Be Equated With Religious Expressions: Allahabad High Court Denies Bail Revisional Authority Under AP ROR Act Has Jurisdiction To Direct Inquiry Into Illegal Transfers Of Assigned Land: Andhra Pradesh High Court Indian Law Does Not Recognise 'Joint Parenting' As A Statutory Concept; Child Welfare Remains Paramount: Bombay High Court Order 26 Rule 9 CPC | Court Must Appoint Survey-Knowing Commissioner In Suits Alleging Physical Encroachment And Boundary Disputes: Calcutta High Court Section 33-C(2) ID Act | Labour Court Has Jurisdiction To Recover Consequential Benefits Arising From CAT Orders: Delhi High Court Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC | Procedural Law Is Meant For Advancement Of Justice; Technicalities Should Not Scuttle Opportunity To Lead Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court High Court Can Condition Condonation Of Delay In Land Acquisition Appeals Upon Waiver Of Interest For Delayed Period: Bombay High Court Employees Compensation Act | Insurance Company Not Liable To Indemnify Penalty Imposed On Employer Under Section 4-A(3)(b): Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees’ Compensation Act | Failure To Frame Issue On Employer-Employee Relationship Vitiates Commissioner’s Award: Kerala High Court Default Bail Under Section 187 BNSS | Period Of Investigation Depends On Substance Of Allegations In FIR, Not Merely Mentioned Sections: Madhya Pradesh High Court SARFAESI Act | Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Must Be Challenged Under Section 17 Before DRT, Not Via Writ Petition: Kerala High Court

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