Electricity Act 2003 | Section 56(2) Does Not Preclude Licensee From Raising Supplementary Demand After Two Years; Only Restricts Right To Disconnect: Supreme Court Dissolution Of Partnership At Will | Outgoing Partner Entitled To Market Value Of Assets As On Date Of Distribution, Not Date Of Dissolution: Supreme Court SEBI | Release Of Escrow Under Buyback Regulations Does Not Preclude Independent Inquiry Into Fraud Under PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Promotion Based On Merit Does Not Wipe Out Past Adverse Records But Must Be Balanced In FR 56(j) Compulsory Retirement: Supreme Court Appellate Court Can Convict For Offence Even If Charge Not Framed By Trial Court Under Section 464 CrPC: Supreme Court Extradition | Sovereign Assurance Does Not Override Judicial Sentencing; Cannot Be Used To Artificially Accelerate Sentence Completion: Supreme Court Article 21 | State Has A Positive Duty To Protect Public Health By Implementing Front-Of-Package Labelling Regulations: Supreme Court Revenue Entries Are Not Documents Of Title, Cannot Replace Substantive Evidence In Property Disputes: Supreme Court Long Possession Without Hostile Animus Does Not Amount To Adverse Possession: Supreme Court Administrative Discretion Must Comply With Article 14; Subsequent Executive Decisions Cannot Retroactively Cure Failure Of Timely Performance: Supreme Court Municipal Corporation Cannot Unilaterally Downgrade Market Value Of Land Acquired For Road Widening To Deny TDR Certificates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Execution Of Agreement To Sell Does Not Automatically Terminate Existing Tenancy: Allahabad High Court Writ Jurisdiction Not Maintainable When Title To Property Is Under A Cloud And Subject Matter Of Disputed Facts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Amendment Of Plaint Seeking Impleadment Of Third Parties And Addition Of Time-Barred Claims In A Partition Suit Cannot Be Permitted: Bombay High Court Reassessment Order Does Not Result In Merger Of Original Assessment Order If Issues Are Distinct: Andhra Pradesh High Court GST Assessment Order Uploaded Only Under 'Additional Notices' Tab Without Separate Intimation Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Calcutta High Court 'Prolonged Inaction' Cannot Be Rewarded: Delhi High Court Upholds CESTAT Refusal To Condone 968-Day Delay In Filing Customs Appeal Probate No Longer Mandatory To Establish Rights Under A Will Following 2025 Amendment To Indian Succession Act: J&K High Court Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Used To Introduce New Factual Foundations Or Reopen Concluded Arbitral Awards: Karnataka High Court High Court Cannot Invoke Article 227 To Strike Off Plaint When Statutory Remedy Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Is Available: Madras High Court Section 58 BNSS | Detention Beyond 24 Hours Without Magistrate’s Authority Vitiates Arrest And Subsequent Remand: Orissa High Court Arbitrator Is The Sole Judge Of Quality And Quantity Of Evidence, Court Cannot Act As Court Of Appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 5 Limitation Act | Court Cannot Condone Delay In A Mechanical Manner Without Ascertaining Bona Fides Of The Applicant: Calcutta High Court High Court Cannot Quash FIR Under Section 482 CrPC By Conducting Mini-Trial On Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court Taxation Law | Mere Assertion Of Natural Justice Violation On Disputed Facts Won't Bypass Statutory Appeal: Delhi High Court

Neutral substance quantity must be considered while  contraband as'small' or 'commercial'- Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


 

While classifying the amount of contraband discovered as a "small quantity" or "commercial quantity," the Supreme Court reaffirmed that neutral substance quantity cannot be disregarded.

The Kerala High Court in this case allowed the appeal brought by the accused who had been found guilty in an NDPS case by relying on its earlier decision in E. Micheal Raj V. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau 2005(2) Crimes 181 (the challenged ruling, which was rendered in 2007).

The decision in E. Micheal Raj [(2008) 5 SCC 161] was later overturned in Hira Singh Vs. Union of India, the bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay S. Oka remarked when the appeal against this decision was scheduled for hearing last week.

There is no argument regarding the fact that the judicial decision in Hira Singh v. Union of India & Anr., reported as 2020 SCC Online SC 382, now resolves the issue and states that the decision of this Court relied upon in the contested judgement, "E. Micheal Raj V. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, (2008) 5 SCC 161," is no longer good law and that the quantity of the neutral substance cannot be disregarded when calculating the amount "The bench declared.

The bench noted the following when granting the State's appeal: "Given the aforementioned circumstances, we are forced to accept the appeal and maintain the 10-year sentence that the Trial Court imposed. Although we are aware of the absurdity of the situation caused by the extended pending of the current appeal, the in question judgement is from the 28.3.2007, or 15 years ago "The Supreme Court's three-judge panel had made the following ruling in Hira Singh (supra):

(I)This Court's ruling in the case of E. Micheal Raj (Supra) taking the position that, when determining the small quantity or commercial quantity of a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance in a mixture with one or more neutral substance(s), the quantity of the neutral substance(s) is not to be taken into consideration and that, instead, only the actual content by weight of the offending narcotic drug is relevant for the purpose of the investigation (II). If narcotics or psychotropic substances are found in a mixture with one or more neutral substances, the quantity of the neutral substance(s) must be considered when determining the "small or commercial quantity" of the narcotics or psychotropic substances, along with the actual content by weight of the offending substance.

Intelligence Officer, Thiruvananthapuram

vs

K K Naushad 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Latest Legal News