Mere Unwanted Staring At A Woman's Chest In Office Does Not Constitute Voyeurism Under Section 354-C IPC: Bombay High Court State Cannot Justify Espionage FIR Based Solely On Custodial Disclosure Without Corroborative Evidence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail Mere Issuance Of Letter Of Intent Without Formal Work Order Does Not Create Concluded Contract Or Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court Executing Court Cannot Modify Terms Of Compromise Decree Merely Because Implementation Is Impracticable: Supreme Court Adjudicating Authority Only Needs To Check For 'Plausible' Pre-Existing Dispute Under Section 9 IBC, Not Its Success On Merits: Supreme Court Arguing Against Settled Law To Show Skill Wastes Court Time; Giving Up Such Arguments A Professional Virtue: Supreme Court Limitation Under Section 468 CrPC Is Computed From Date Of Filing Complaint, Not Date Of Cognizance: Supreme Court MSCS Act | Co-operative Society Can't Acquire Corporate Debtor Under IBC If Not In 'Same Line Of Business' As Per Its Bye-Laws: Supreme Court Multi-State Co-op Societies Can Only Invest In Entities With Substantially Similar Core Business Under Bye-Laws: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Usurp Governor's Statutory Discretion To Grant Extraordinary Pension Under 1981 Rules: Supreme Court Litigants Can Challenge Non-Appealable Interlocutory Orders In Final Appeal Under Section 105 CPC: Supreme Court Plaintiff Cannot File Fresh Suit For Title If Relief Was Omitted In Earlier Injunction Suit Arising From Same Dispute: Supreme Court Plaintiff's Failure To Enter Witness Box Draws Rebuttable Presumption, Not Fatal To Suit If Rebutted By Cogent Evidence: Supreme Court Sale Deeds Executed During Pendency Of Specific Performance Suit Hit By Doctrine Of Lis Pendens: Supreme Court EWS Certificates Must Relate To Correct Financial Year; Courts Should Not Routinely Interfere In Online Recruitment Rejections: Supreme Court Court Can Lift 'Veil Of Partnership' To Evict Tenants Using Reconstitution As Cloak For Unlawful Sub-Letting: Supreme Court State Cannot Fix Lower Dearness Relief Rate For Pensioners Than Dearness Allowance For Serving Employees: Supreme Court Prolonged Separation Indicates Matrimonial Bond Broken Beyond Repair: Supreme Court Upholds Divorce Over Wife's Cruelty Right To Contest Elections Distinct From Right To Vote, Co-Operative Societies Can Set Threshold Eligibility Conditions: Supreme Court Court Can Draw Adverse Inference Against Party Withholding Best Evidence, Has No Duty To Seek Production: Supreme Court Limitation | Delay Condonation Cannot Be An Act Of Generosity: Supreme Court Refuses To Condone 31-Year Delay To Challenge Decree Sentence Suspension In Murder Cases Only Under Exceptional Circumstances; Presumption Of Innocence Erased Upon Conviction: Supreme 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