Limitation Period For Specific Performance Starts From Date Of Refusal If No Fixed Date Stipulated In Agreement: Karnataka High Court Pensionary Benefits Not ‘Pecuniary Advantage’, Cannot Be Deducted From Income For Motor Accident Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Propounder Faces Heavy Burden Of Proof When Testator Is Illiterate; Registration Does Not Cure Unexplained Suspicious Circumstances: Supreme Court Mother Killing Minor Children Over Husband's Refusal To Take Her To Workplace Is Murder, Not Culpable Homicide: Andhra Pradesh High Court Specific Performance Of Registered Agreement To Sell Is No Longer Discretionary Post-2018 Amendment: Allahabad High Court Civil Court Has Jurisdiction To Determine If Tenanted Property Belongs To Joint Family Even If Tenancy Order Stands In Individual Karta's Name: Bombay High Court Notice Under Section 107 BNSS Mandatory Before Attaching Property; Right To Property Is A Constitutional Right: Calcutta High Court Post-Cognizance Arrest 'Makes No Sense' If Investigation Completed Without Arrest: Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under BNSS Criminal Courts Cannot Be Used To Settle Civil Inheritance Disputes Over Appreciated Land Values: Gujarat High Court Quashes Fraud Case Accused Must Raise Probable Defence To Rebut Statutory Presumption Under Section 139 NI Act If Signatures Are Undisputed: Himachal Pradesh High Court Passing Departmental Exam Not A Pre-requisite For Grant Of ACP/MACP Benefits: Jharkhand High Court Convenience Of Family And Accused Paramount For Jail Shifting; Trial Court Can't Reject Application Merely For Non-Residency: J&K High Court Litigants Who Attempt To Pollute The Stream Of Justice With Tainted Hands Are Not Entitled To Any Relief: Karnataka High Court

High Court of Madhya Pradesh Upholds Acquittal in NDPS Act Case, Cites Lack of Compelling Evidence Against Respondent

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore, comprising the bench of Hon’ble Shri Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Hon’ble Shri Justice Pranay Verma, upheld the acquittal of the respondent in the Criminal Appeal No. 10841 of 2023 under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (N.D.P.S. Act). The judgment, dated 5th January 2024, highlighted the need for compelling evidence in cases of acquittal appeals.

The State, as the appellant, had challenged the judgment of the Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, Neemuch, which acquitted the respondent, Ajay s/o Shambhulal Meena, from charges under Sections 8/18(B) and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The case stemmed from an incident dated 15th April 2018, where the co-accused was found in possession of 2 Kg 600 grams of illegal opium. The respondent was implicated based on the co-accused’s statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Justice Dharmadhikari, in his observation, noted, “There is no material proof that the alleged contraband seized from co-accused Indarmal was going to be sold to accused Ajay.” This lack of direct evidence against the respondent was a pivotal factor in upholding the acquittal.

The High Court also referred to several Supreme Court judgments underscoring the principles guiding appellate intervention in acquittal cases. The bench cited, “In view of the aforesaid findings recorded by the trial Court and the law laid down by the Apex Court, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order and there are no compelling and substantial grounds to interfere with the order of acquittal.”

This judgment reiterates the established legal principle that in the absence of substantial and compelling evidence, appellate courts should exercise caution in overturning acquittal verdicts. The Court dismissed the appeal, stating, “Considering the fact that the appellant could not establish the basic thing and other discrepancies observed by the trial Court, we do no find any merit in the present appeal.”

Date of Decision: 5th January 2024

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH  VS AJAY   

 

Latest Legal News