Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

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