Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

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