High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Divorce Cannot Be Granted Merely on WhatsApp Chats: Bombay High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Decree Based on Unproved Electronic Evidence State Cannot Demand Settlement Amount Yet Withhold Legitimate Refund: Bombay High Court Strikes Down MVAT Settlement Order Surveyor’s Report Is Not Sacrosanct; Arbitral Award Ignoring Vital Evidence Is Perverse: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Insurance Arbitration Award When Victim Lives Under Exclusive Control Of Accused, Burden Shifts To Accused To Explain What Happened: Calcutta High Court Medical Evidence Clearly Indicating Suicide Cannot Be Overlooked, Prosecution Must Prove Homicidal Death Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Andhra Pradesh High Court 'Candidates Acted With Full Knowledge of Consequences': Kerala High Court Reverses Order for Refund of 10% Exit Fee in Medical PG Mop-Up Admissions Dispensing with Departmental Inquiry Without Material is Arbitrary: Supreme Court Sets Aside Dismissal of Delhi Police Constable Power Of Attorney Holder Authorized To Enforce Pre-Emption Right Can File Suit, Death Of Principal Does Not Bar Legal Heirs: Orissa High Court Government Servant Convicted In Criminal Case Can Be Dismissed Without Departmental Enquiry: Tripura High Court Upholds Teacher’s Dismissal RTI Cannot Be Used To Bypass Statutory Bar On Police Case Diaries: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Penalty Against Police Officers Externment Cannot Be Based On Police Report And Stale Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes District Magistrate’s Order Even Exonerated Accused Can Be Summoned During Trial: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Summoning Under Section 358 BNSS Benefit of Doubt Acquittal Not Equal to Honourable Acquittal: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Police Constable Candidate Madras High Court Allows NEET-Failed Student To Appear In CBSE Class XII Mathematics Exam After Last-Minute Subject Switch By Parents Salary of Parents Cannot Be Used to Deny OBC Non-Creamy Layer Status in Absence of Post Equivalence: Supreme Court Father Who Rapes Minor Daughter Cannot Seek Leniency: Bombay High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment Construction Of Toilet Is Bare Necessity For Proper Use Of Premises, Expression "Own Use" Not Confined To Landlord's Personal Physical Use: Calcutta High Court 353 IPC | Conviction Cannot Rest On Uncorroborated Testimony Of Sole Witness When Other Evidence Contradicts Occurrence: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal 250 BNSS | 60-Day Discharge Period Is Procedural, Does Not Extinguish Accused's Right To Seek Discharge: Gujarat High Court Section 45 PMLA Cannot Become an Instrument of Endless Incarceration: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in ₹18 Crore Scholarship Scam Case Land Acquisition — Heirs Who Slept on Rights for 23 Years Cannot Claim Ignorance to Revive Dead Challenge: Karnataka High Court Institutional Hearing Is No Violation of Natural Justice: Kerala High Court Upholds BPCL’s Termination of Decades-Old Petroleum Dealership Witnesses Not Expected To Recount Past Incidents With Mathematical Precision, Minor Contradictions Don't Demolish Credibility: Orissa High Court If a Suit Is Ex Facie Barred by Limitation, the Court Has No Choice but to Dismiss It: P&H High Court

Quashes FIR In NDPS Case: No Tangible Evidence Linking Petitioner to the Crime: Madhya Pradesh High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent landmark judgment dated September 8, 2023, Justice Pranay Verma of the Madhya Pradesh High Court quashed the FIR against Ganesharam, an agriculturist from Rajasthan. The FIR was registered under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act, 1985 for allegedly being involved in the transportation of contraband poppy straw.

"No recovery of contraband has been made from the possession of the petitioner," stated Justice Pranay Verma. The judge added that Ganesharam "has been implicated only on the basis of disclosure statements of co-accused Thanaram recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act."

The FIR dated March 6, 2020, claimed that Ganesharam was involved in transporting illegal poppy straw in a pick-up vehicle. The only evidence against him was a disclosure statement from co-accused Thanaram, who claimed that the contraband was meant to be supplied to Ganesharam. No other tangible evidence like call details or payment records was presented to implicate Ganesharam in the case.

The judgment emphasized the importance of substantive evidence, citing a precedent case, Dilip Kumar Vs. State of M.P., which stated that "there is no legally admissible evidence within the meaning of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act amounting to discovery of fact."

The High Court's judgment noted, "From perusal of the material available on record, it appears that no recovery of any contraband has been made from the possession of the petitioner." Further, the court pointed out the absence of any evidence to demonstrate contact between Ganesharam and the other co-accused at the time of the alleged incident.

Justice Pranay Verma concluded that there was "no tangible evidence linking the petitioner to the crime," and therefore, the FIR and all related proceedings against Ganesharam were quashed.

The judgment has been welcomed as an affirmation of the importance of substantive evidence in criminal proceedings, particularly in cases involving accusations of serious crimes under the NDPS Act. Legal experts consider this judgment a significant addition to the jurisprudence on personal liberty and evidence-based justice.

Date of Decision: 8 September 2023

GANESHARAM vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Latest Legal News