Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal

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