Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2006(12)SC416; 2006(9)SCALE644; 2007(2)LC1290(SC)
..... passed by the special judge, indore in special case no. 44 of 2000 under section 8 of the narcotics drugs and psychotropic substances act, 1985 (for short 'the ndps act').3. one sabiha khatun, an inspector in central bureau of narcotics (bureau) received an information from an informer on 2.8.2000 that a person would carry around 1.5 ..... independent witnesses denied that search and seizure for recovery of opium took place in their presence. an adverse inference was further drawn as to why pw-1 narcotic sub-inspector therein brought down only one passenger from the bus if he did not have any prior information or entertain any suspicion regarding involvement of appellant ..... disclosed by ms. sabiha khatun also is inconsistent, as it was stated:43. before proceeding to spot from office, we have given information of our departure to narcotic superintendent shri ratanlal goudia, then said that madame might have given. whether it was given in writing or orally, i have no information about it. i, on .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2007(3)SC630; 2007(3)SCALE598; (2007)2SCC777
..... that no application under this sub-section shall be made in relation to goods to which section 123 applies or to goods in relation to which any offence under the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances act, 1985 (61 of 1985) has been committed:provided also that no application under this sub-section shall be made for the interpretation of the classification of the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(120)ECC1; 2007LC1(SC); 2007(9)SCALE142; (2007)6SCC373
S.H. Kapadia, J. Civil Appeal No. 1137 of 20021. The dispute involved in this civil appeal is as regards the assessable value of the Ceramic Capacitors and Diodes imported by the importer from M/s Pearl Industrial Company of Hong Kong during the period February, 1996 to July, 1996. The importer had declared the price of Ceramic Capacitors @ Hong Kong $ 6 per 1000 pcs. and the CIF price of the consignment of diodes was declared as Hong Kong $ 29406. 2. The facts giving rise to this civil appeal are as follows. The respondent had imported six consignments of ceramic capacitors and one consignment of diodes from Hong Kong during the above period. The goods were shipped from Hong Kong by M/s Compo Export of Hong Kong and M/s Pearl Industrial Company of Hong Kong. The price of ceramic capacitors was declared by the respondent in its Bill of Entry @ HK$ 6.00 per 1000 pcs. whereas the price of diodes was declared @ HK $ 29406 CIF as reflected in the invoices. On 27.4.1998 a show cause notice ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC2507; 2007CriLJ3536; 2007LawHerald(SC)2216.
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, directing acquittal of the respondent (hereinafter described as 'accused'). The Trial Court, i.e., Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Hyderabad in Calendar Case No. 80 of 1996, had held the respondent guilty of offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act'), while directing his acquittal in respect of the offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation.2. The prosecution version, as unfolded during trial, is as follows:The accused herein is a public servant. He demanded a sum of Rs. 300/- from PW-1, a Traveling Ticket Examiner in South Central Railway on 11.1.1995 and accepted the same on 16.1.1995 at 5.40 p.m.PW-1 was working as TTE in South Central ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(2)BLJR2814; 2008CriLJ386; JT2007(12)SC1; 2008(1)KLT503(SC); 2008(1)MPHT1(SC)
..... would apply to special laws and offences committed by a person not covered by ipc. in the present case, we are concerned with the provisions of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances act, 1985 which is a special law. there is no express power in a court to order imprisonment in default of payment of fine. but ..... in special criminal case no. 12 of 1994. both the courts convicted the appellant herein for an offence under section 8 read with section 18 of the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') and ordered him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and also to pay fine of rupees ..... m. in the morning, station house officer, ratangarh received secret information through an informant that one shantilal (appellant herein) resident of village kankariya talai was carrying narcotic drug and was expected to have come from the said village. he was to carry illegal opium to beju (rajasthan). the information was recorded by the officer in .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2008)2SCC370; 2007AIRSCW7864; 2008(2)SCC370; (2008)1SCC(Cri)415; 2008(1)Crimes119; 2008(2)KCCR1141
..... if that be so, the position must be the following: if the officer has reason to believe from personal knowledge or prior information received from any person that any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance (in respect of which an offence has been committed) is kept or concealed in any building, conveyance or enclosed place, it is imperative that the officer should take ..... that any officer of any of the departments mentioned in section 42 may seize in any public place or in transit any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, etc. in respect of which he has reason to believe that an offence punishable under the act has been committed. he is also authorised to detain and search ..... s.b. sinha, j.1. interpretation of the provisions of sections 42 and 43 of the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances act, 1985 (ndps act) calls for our consideration in this appeal which has been filed by the directorate of revenue against the respondent herein aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment and .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(56)BLJR499; 146(2008)DLT197(SC); 2007(14)SCALE263; (2008)2SCC417; 2008(1)LC82(SC); 2008AIRSCW390; (2008)1SCC(Cri)449
..... 1985, possession whereof by itself contributes an offence. the quantity of the drug recovered answers the description of commercial quantity. in india, an accused found guilty of the ..... of the drug described as mdma finds place at serial no. 80 in the schedule. the list also describes mdma at serial no. 15 as 3,4-methylendeioxymethamphetamine. the last entry states 'salts & preparation of above'. the article recovered is a psychotropic substance under the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances act, ..... of justice, united states of america, do hereby certify that the attached affidavit, with attachments, by marietta i. geckos, senior trial attorney, narcotic and dangerous drug section, criminal division, united states department of justice, united states of america, is authentic and was duly executed pursuant to united state laws .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008CriLJ3621; 2008(3)KLT400; 2008(II)OLR(SC)393; 2008(10)SCALE383; 2008(2)LC855(SC); 2008AIRSCW4868; 2008CriLJ3621; 2008(3)Crimes122
..... brought on records.14. the relevant provisions of the smugglers and foreign exchange manipulators (forfeiture of property) act, 1976 (for short 'safema') and narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances act, 1985 (ndps) are in pari materia.15. contentions were raised that the show cause notice shows complete non-application of mind on the ..... conference at vienna in february, 1971 ; and (d) any other international convention, or protocol or other instrument amending an international convention, relating to narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances which may be ratified or acceded to by india after the commencement of this act.8. section 68a of the act applies to persons specified ..... authority that acquisition of the property by them has nothing to do with the purported income derived by `mirchi' out of illicit trafficking of narcotic, drug and psychotropic substances.on behalf of the appellants, it was furthermore urged:(i) even a perusal of from the order passed by the competent authority, it .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(56)BLJR2254; 2008AIRSCW5964; 2008(4)LH(SC)2896
..... section 52 provides for disposal of persons arrested and articles seized. section 52a provides for disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances; sub-section (2) whereof reads as under:(2) where any narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances has been seized and forwarded to the officer in charge of the nearest police station or to the ..... contains draconian provisions. it must, however, be borne in mind that the act was enacted having regard to the mandate contained in international conventions on narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. only because the burden of proof under certain circumstances is placed on the accused, the same, by itself, in our opinion, would not ..... the court to impose fine of more than maximum punishment of rs.2,00,000/- as also the presumption of guilt emerging from possession of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, the extent of burden to prove the foundational facts on the prosecution, i.e., `proof beyond all reasonable doubt' would be more .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2008(9)SC328; (2009)153PLR138; 2008(11)SCALE513; 2008(8)SCC557; (2008)3SCC(Cri)580; 2008(3)Crimes365; 2008(6)Supreme291; 2008(11)SCALE513; 2008(5)LH(SC)3506
..... busy with the duties under the code, the officers mentioned in section 53 of the act have been mandated to take action for disposal of the seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances by filing an application which, when filed, has to be allowed by the magistrate as soon as may be.the appellant has also failed to ..... the high court dismissed the appeal filed by hardip singh and upheld the conviction and the sentence passed against him under the provisions of section 18 of the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substance act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the `act').2. briefly, the prosecution case is that on 20.8.1997 when inspector jarnail singh (examined as ..... 2000crilj4635 relied by him in order to buttress his argument, wherein, a similar contention was raised that after the seizure the goods were sent to the superintendent, central narcotics bureau, kota, who, as per law, was in charge of a police station but had not affixed his seal on the articles and the samples, and therefore .....
Tag this Judgment!