Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

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