Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

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