Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-15-2008
Reported in : 2008CriLJ4425; ILR2008KAR4166; ILR2008(4)Kar4166; 2008(4)KCCRSN251; 2008(5)AIRKarR408; 2008CriLJ4425;
V. Jagannathan, J.1. 'In every case the end result is important, but the means to achieve it must remain above board' observed the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh : 1999CriLJ3672 when the public interest to protect the society from the adverse effects of drugs abuse, is pitted against the procedural safeguards in ensuring fair trial to the accused and to protect his valuable human rights, what should be the approach of the courts. NDPS Act being a penal statute and the offence under it being a grave one attracting severe punishment, whether it is incumbent, on the part of the prosecuting agency to strictly follow the procedures provided under Sections 41, 42, 52 to 55 and 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act and whether the absence of any finding with regard to the percentage of heroin drug in the samples sent for examination, will be an irrelevant factor, are the important questions among others that call for answer in these appeals.2. Criminal Appeal No. 2236/06 is filed by the A-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Dec-19-2008
Reported in : 2009(5)KarLJ9
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The Writ Petition is filed by M/s. Flemingo Duty-free Shops Pvt., Ltd. a Company incorporated in this year 2004 seeking for issuance of declaratory relief to declare that clause 3.2 of the Invitation for Expression of Interest (hereinafter in short referred to as 'E.O.I') issued by the third respondent which is Bangalore International Airport Limited (hereinafter in short referred to as BIAL'), in which it has sought to restrict issuance of tender documents and consideration of bids only from five persons is arbitrary and discriminatory, that the evaluation of the E.O.I by respondents 3 & 4 with respect to Retail and Duty-Free shop to be established in the International Departure and Arrival Duty-free at the New BIAL, Devanahally is arbitrary, discriminatory and further directions to declare the action of the respondents 3 & 4 in short-listing only respondents 5 to 9 for issuance of tender documents and excluding the petitioner from the said list and decision...
Tag this Judgment!