Rajasthan Court November 1996 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
State of Rajasthan Vs. Purkha Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-01-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ943
ORDERJ.C. Verma, J.1. This is criminal revision petition under Section 401/397 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 17-2-88 passed by Shri D. N. Joshi, Sessions Judge, Balotra, whereby learned Sessions Judge had discharged the accused Purkha Ram from the offences under Sections 17 and 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the N.D.P.S. Act). The accused was discharged on the grond that prosecution had grossly violated the mandatory provisions of Section 42 of the Act and actions under the mandatory provisions of Section 42 of the Act were not initiated by the officers empowered i.e. the Inspector, Sub-Inspector etc. The Sessions Judge had relied upon 1987 Cri LR 698 (Nandlal v. State) a judgment of this High Court while passing above said impugned order.2. The facts relating to the said case, as per prosecution are that one Pratap Singh, Foot Constable had given an application in the Police Station, Balotra to the fact that when he was on du...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Mohanlal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-01-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ1091
ORDERJ.C. Verma, J.1. This criminal revision has been filed by the State under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 2-2-88 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra, whereby learned Sessions Judge had declined to take cognizance against accused Mohanlal and had discharged him without proceeding with the case of the prosecution any further. The learned Sessions Judge while passing the impugned order had held that the action taken under Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called 'the N.D.P.S. Act) had not been taken by the empowered officer under the Act and therefore whole of the proceedings were ineffective and illegal and the prosecution started on the initiation of such an officer, who was not empowered under the Act to initiate proceedings were to be quashed.2. The facts, leading to the case to be tried in connection with Section 17 of N.D.P.S. Act, were, that one Prabhu Singh, A.S.I, who had taken action under Sec...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›