Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

Independent Witnesses Not Mandatory to Prove Charges Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Aravind Kumar, upheld the conviction of an appellant under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The appellant, Jagwinder Singh, was convicted for possessing 54 Kgs of poppy husk.

The apex court’s decision, delivered on November 2nd, reaffirmed the judgments of both the Trial Court and the High Court. In a key observation, the Supreme Court noted, “Law does not require only an independent witness to prove a charge attracting the provisions of NDPS Act.” This remark highlights a crucial aspect of evidence law in narcotic cases, underscoring the court’s stance on the necessity of independent witnesses in NDPS cases.

The appeal raised significant questions regarding the procedural compliance in the seizure and recovery of narcotics. The court observed that non-filling of the CFCL form at the site of arrest and recovery, and the delay in sending samples for the FSL report, were not fatal to the prosecution’s case. This clarification from the Supreme Court adds a new dimension to the understanding of procedural requirements under the NDPS Act.

The counsel for the appellant, Mrs. Kiran Bhardwaj, alongside Mr. V. K. Verma and Mr. Rajat Srivastav, contended that the appellant was not in conscious possession of the contraband and argued procedural lapses in the case. However, the court dismissed these arguments, finding no merit in the appeal.

The State’s case was represented by Ms. Nupur Kumar and Ms. Muskan Nagpal, who successfully argued that the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the appellant’s conviction were justified.

This ruling is significant as it clarifies the evidentiary requirements in cases under the NDPS Act and reinforces the court’s approach towards handling narcotic offences. The decision also serves as a precedent for future cases involving similar charges and circumstances.

As the court concluded the hearing, all pending applications related to the case were disposed of, bringing a close to a long-contested legal battle.

Date of Decision: 2 November, 2023

JAGWINDER SINGH VS STATE OF PUNJAB

Latest Legal News