Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta 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   

 

Similar News