Seniority Must Be Calculated From the Date of Initial Appointment, Not Regularization: Madras High Court Rules Section 319 Cr.P.C. | Mere Association Not Enough for Criminal Liability: Karnataka HC Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds ₹25,000 Per Kanal Compensation for Land Acquired for Nangal-Talwara Railway Line, Dismisses Railway’s Appeal No Work No Pay Principle Not Applicable: Orissa High Court Orders Reinstatement and Full Back Wages for Wrongfully Terminated Lecturer No Assault, No Obstruction, Only Words Exchanged: Bombay High Court Quashes Charges of Obstruction Against Advocates Under Section 353 IPC Matrimonial Offences Can Be Quashed Even if Non-Compoundable, When Genuine Compromise Is Reached: J&K HC Plaintiff Entitled to Partition, But Must Contribute Redemption Share to Defendant: Delhi High Court Clarifies Subrogation Rights in Mortgage Redemption Labeling Someone A 'Rowdy' Without Convictions Infringes Personal Liberty And Reputation: Kerala High Court P&H High Court Denies Pensionary Benefits for Work-Charged Employee's Widow; Declares Work-Charged Service Not Eligible for ACP or Pension Benefits Acquittal is Acquittal: Rajasthan High Court Orders Appointment of Candidate Denied Job Over Past FIR At The Bail Stage, Culpability Is Not To Be Decided; Allegations Must Be Tested During Trial: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in SCST Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge to "Secular" and "Socialist" Additions in Constitution Preamble Supreme Court Rejects Res Judicata in Land Allotment Case: Fresh Cause of Action Validates Public Interest Litigation Public Resources Are Not Privileges for the Few: Supreme Court Declares Preferential Land Allotments to Elites Unconstitutional Past antecedents alone cannot justify denial of bail: Kerala High Court Grants Bail Revenue Records Alone Cannot Prove Ownership: Madras High Court Dismisses Temple's Appeal for Injunction Humanitarian Grounds Cannot Undermine Investigation: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Interim Bail in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam The Power Under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 CPC is Drastic and Extraordinary; Should Not Be Exercised Mechanically or Merely for the Asking: Calcutta High Court Telangana High Court Strikes Down Section 10-A: Upholds Transparency in Public Employment Absence of Homogeneous Mixing and Procedural Deficiencies Vitiate NDPS Conviction: Punjab and Haryana High Court Business Disputes Cannot Be Given Criminal Color: Patna High Court Quashes Complaint in Trademark Agreement Case Gujarat High Court Appoints Wife as Guardian of Comatose Husband, Calls for Legislative Framework Standard of Proof in Professional Misconduct Requires 'Higher Threshold' but Below 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Delhi High Court Imprisonment Cannot Bar Education: Bombay HC Allows UAPA Accused to Pursue LL.B. High Court Acquits Accused in Double Murder Case, Asserts ‘Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof’ Long separation and irreparable breakdown of marriage must be read as cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Regulation 101 Applies to All Aided Institutions, Including Minority Ones, Says Allahabad High Court Fraud Unravels All Judicial Acts : Jharkhand High Court Orders Demolition of Unauthorized Constructions in Ratan Heights Case Suspicious Circumstances Cannot Validate a Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds 1997 Will Over 2000 Will

Karnataka High Court Rejects Petition to Quash NDPS Case: Forensic Analysis Crucial in Narcotics Proceedings

07 September 2024 2:30 PM

By: sayum


The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru has rejected the petition to quash criminal proceedings against Mr. Kalam Narendra under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act). The petitioner sought to annul the proceedings initiated by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), arguing procedural lapses and contesting the charges of possessing a commercial quantity of LSD. Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty, in his order dated May 27, 2024, highlighted the essential role of forensic analysis in narcotics cases and upheld the legal process's integrity.

On January 2, 2024, the NCB Bengaluru Zonal Unit received credible information about a postal parcel at the Foreign Post Office, Chamarajpete, Bengaluru, suspected to contain narcotic drugs. Upon investigation, the parcel was found to contain 10 strips of LSD and 34.38 grams of ganja gummies. The parcel, addressed to 'Pandu' at Royal Heritage Apartments, was delivered under a controlled delivery mechanism. The petitioner, Mr. Kalam Narendra, was apprehended upon accepting the dummy parcel. Subsequently, he was arrested, and the contraband was seized.

The court stressed the significance of forensic evidence in narcotics cases. "The quantity and quality assessment of a drug must be conducted by forensic laboratories and not the courts," Justice Shetty noted. The petitioner argued that the delay in obtaining the FSL report violated his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, but the court held that such matters are better suited for bail petitions rather than quashing proceedings.

The court addressed the petitioner’s claim that the LSD was for personal use, thus attracting lesser penalties under Section 27 of the NDPS Act. The defense argued that each LSD strip contained a small quantity, not exceeding 0.002 grams, which is considered a small quantity under the Act. However, the court observed that the total weight, including the blotter paper, amounted to 0.11 grams, categorizing it as a commercial quantity. "For the purpose of determining whether it constitutes a small or commercial quantity, the total weight of the mixture or preparation, including neutral substances, must be considered," the court stated, referencing the Supreme Court's ruling in Hira Singh & Another vs. Union of India.

The petitioner's counsel invoked Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), seeking to quash the FIR on the grounds of abuse of process. However, the court reiterated the principles established in prior judgments, emphasizing that such powers should be exercised sparingly and only in rare cases where the complaint does not disclose any offense. "The court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of the allegations made in the FIR," the order clarified.

Justice Shetty remarked, "The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide but must be exercised with caution. The allegations in the FIR, if taken at face value, disclose a cognizable offense necessitating further investigation."

The High Court's decision to dismiss the writ petition reinforces the legal framework governing narcotics cases, emphasizing the importance of forensic evidence and proper judicial procedures. This judgment is expected to influence future cases, underscoring the judiciary's role in upholding the law against narcotic crimes.

Date of Decision: May 27, 2024

Kalam Narendra vs. Union of India, Narcotics Control Bureau, Bangalore Zonal Unit

Similar News