“Possession Follows Title” Not An Absolute Rule When Ownership Is Disputed: Andhra Pradesh High Court ORDER 30 CPC | Appeal Filed by Firm Does Not Abate on Death of Partners: Calcutta High Court Bank Cannot Freeze Customer’s Account Based on Third-Party Dispute: Calcutta High Court Slams Axis Bank Not Every Middleman Is a Trafficker: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail in International Cyber Trafficking Case, Cites Absence of Mens Rea Stay in One Corner Freezes the Whole Map: Madras High Court Upholds Validity of Decades-Old Land Acquisition Despite 11-Year Delay in Award Parole Once Granted Cannot Be Made Illusory by Imposing Impossible Conditions: Rajasthan High Court Declares Mechanical Surety Requirement for Indigent Convicts Unconstitutional Once Acquisition Is Complete, Title Disputes Fall Outside Civil Court Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Appeal Lies Against Lok Adalat Compromise Decree Even on Grounds of Fraud: Orissa High Court Declares First Appeal Not Maintainable POCSO | Absence of Medical Corroboration Not Fatal; Sole Testimony of Minor Victim Sufficient for Conviction: Orissa High Court Limitation Act | Article 137 Applies to Applications Under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC; 3-Year Limit Cannot Be Rendered Illusory: Punjab & Haryana High Court Benami Defence Cannot Override Registered Ownership: Delhi High Court Buries 35-Year-Old Family Settlement Claim Over Property Dispute Off-Road Construction Vehicles Not ‘Motor Vehicles’ Under Law: Supreme Court Quashes Road Tax on Dumpers, Excavators, and Dozers

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