Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances act 1985 section 68s information to competent authority Sorted by: recent Court: punjab and haryana Page 1 of about 27 results (0.083 seconds)

Crm No. M-26714 of 2012 (Oandm) Vs. State of Punjab

Court : Punjab and Haryana

..... repelled under the present set of circumstances.16. not only that, it is highly improbable to believe that the police will plant such a huge quantity of narcotic drugs & psychotropic substances on the petitioner, as contrary urged on his behalf. on the other end, no motive could possibly be attributed as to why the police would ..... in all the cases registered on or after 17.11.2009, there is no necessity to conduct pure content test to ascertain the exact quantity of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances and manufactured drugs. the whole contraband seized shall be considered as such even if it comes within the definition of entry no.239. ii) in the case of ..... issued in s.o.no.1055(e) of the central government. it is absolutely necessary to conduct pure content test to ascertain the exact quantity of the narcotic drug/psychotropic substance contained in the said mixture or preparation. in the absence of pure content test, the whole contraband seized shall not be considered as such. however, .....

Crm No. M-8878 of 2014 Vs. State of Punjab

Court : Punjab and Haryana

..... hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances.14. moreover, it is highly improbable to believe that the police will plant such a huge quantity of narcotic drugs & psychotropic substances on the petitioner, as contrary urged on his behalf. on the other end, no motive could possibly be attributed as to why the police would ..... in all the cases registered on or after 17.11.2009, there is no necessity to conduct pure content test to ascertain the exact quantity of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances and manufactured drugs. the whole contraband seized shall be considered as such even if it comes within the definition of entry no.239. ii) in the case of ..... issued in s.o.no.1055(e) of the central government. it is absolutely necessary to conduct pure content test to ascertain the exact quantity of the narcotic drug/psychotropic substance contained in the said mixture or preparation. in the absence of pure content test, the whole contraband seized shall not be considered as such. however .....

Leela Singh Vs. Leela Singh

Court : Punjab and Haryana

..... leela singh s/o kirpal singh, r/o village kahangarh, police station bareta, district mansa, who has been booked for having committed the offence punishable under section 22 of the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances act, 1985, (hereinafter to be referred as the 'act') in fir no.69, dated 14.05.2012, registered at police station, lehra, district sangrur.2. learned counsel contends ..... of age and he is not feeling comfortable in the jail.3. on the other hand learned counsel for the state submits that the drugs recovered from the petitioner attracts the provision of commercial quantity, since the drug was containing the salt diphenoxylate and beyond 50 grams of the said salt would attract the provision of commercial quantity and there is bar .....

Surendra Vs. State of Haryana

Court : Punjab and Haryana

..... and not prosecution by the police. so, this criminal misc. petition is allowed and fir no.59 dated 18-7-1996 of police station, sirhind under section 22 of the narcotic drugs & psychotropic substances act, 1985 and consequential proceedings having arisen therefrom, are quashed. learned state counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition. section 32 of the act reads as under ..... to have been seized from the possession of the petitioner criminal misc. not m- 4627 of 2011 (o&m) 2 falls within the mischief of "narcotic drugs and psychotropic substance" as defined in the act. they are "drugs or medicines" as defined in the drugs and cosmetics act, 1940. if at all there is contravention by the petitioner that may be of the provisions of .....

Kashmir Chand Son of Mathura Dass and anr. Vs. Central Bureau of Inves ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

..... , manufacture, possess, sell, purchase, transport, warehouse, use, consume, import interstate, export inter-state, import into india, export from india or transship any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, except for medical or scientific purposes and in the manner and to the extent provided by the provisions of this act or the rules or orders made ..... india which-(a) would constitute an offence if committed within india; or(b) under the laws of such place, is an offence relating to narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances having all the legal conditions required to constitute it such an offence the same as or analogous to the legal conditions required to constitute ..... the prescription of a registered medical practitioner only:(c) if it contains a substance specified in schedule h and comes within the purview of the (narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances act, 1985 (61 of 1985)} be labelled with the symbol nrx which shall be in red and conspicuously displayed on the left top corner .....

Gurbachan Singh Vs. the State of Punjab

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : 1991CriLJ713

..... the petitioner on 25-8-1988 much after coming into force of the act. it is significant to note that the prevention of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances ordinance, 1988, has already been promulgated by the president of india on 4th june, 1988 which had immediately come into force. the aforesaid authority ..... those two packets of smack were subsequently recovered on 25-8-1988 from the house of the petitioner, and, a case under section 21 of the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances act, 1985 was registered against him at police station, sadar, patiala. during the investigation of that case the petitioner is stated to have admitted ..... quashment of detention order dated 14th march, 1989, annexure p/1, passed against the petitioner under section 3(1) of the prevention of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances act, 1988 (central act no. 46 of 1988) (hereinafter referred to as the act) with a view to prevent the petitioner from indulging in .....

Ram Mehar and Others Vs. State of Haryana

Court : Punjab and Haryana

..... is apposite to examine the judgments that have been cited at the bar by both the sides. in rajendra prasad's case (supra), in a trial for offences under the ndps act 1985, there was negligence on the part of public prosecutor as he closed the evidence of the prosecution twice without verifying whether cross examination of two material witnesses had been ..... of the recalled witnesses hostile to the case of the prosecution. in support reliance is placed upon the decisions of the hon'ble supreme court reported as rajendra prasad vs. narcotic cell (1999)6 scc 110, raghunandan vs. state of u.p. air 1974 sc 463, p. chhagan lal daga vs. m. sanjay shaw (2003)11 scc 486, p sanjeeva rao .....

Balwant Singh Vs. State of Haryana

Court : Punjab and Haryana

..... 10.1.2003, passed by the learned additional sessions judge, fatehabad, vide which the appellant was convicted under section 15 (e) of the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances act, 1985 (in short 'the ndps act') and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of rupees one lac, in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous ..... ' on the sample parcel and residue and directed the investigating officer to deposit the case property with mhc. 3. the accused was charge-sheeted under section 15 of the ndps act. in supported of its case, the prosecution examined charanjit singh, dsp (pw1), asi guriya ram (pw2), si som raj (pw3), hc tarsem singh (pw4) and ..... with in the present case. here the recovery is from the open fields. therefore, the provisions of section 42 of the ndps act are not attracted. similarly, the provisions of section 50 of the ndps act are also not attracted in the present case since it is not a case of personal search. accused was sitting on .....

Manoj Kumar Vs. State of Punjab

Court : Punjab and Haryana

..... . 1. the present appeal is directed against an order passed by learned judge, special court, jalandhar on 05.02.2011 convicting the appellant for an offence under section 20 of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances act, 1985 (for short 'the act') and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 12 years and to pay a fine of rs. 1 lakh and in default ..... find that though the recovery is of 6 kg of charas but keeping in view the fact that there is no previous history of the appellant of being indulgent in narcotics, we find that the sentence of 10 years would be adequate sentence. 11. consequently, we allow the present appeal to the extent of sentence so as to undergo 10 years .....

Kuldeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab

Court : Punjab and Haryana

..... the appellant, kuldeep singh, was held guilty for having committed the offence punishable under section 29, read with section 21(c) of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances act, 1985, (hereinafter referred to as the ndps act), and ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years, besides payment of fine of rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees one lac ..... dated 03.05.2013, the charge was amended and the appellant was charge-sheeted for having committed the offences punishable under sections 21 and 29 of ndps act. since the public prosecutor proposed not to lead any further evidence and the defence counsel also consented not to further cross-examine the prosecution witnesses already examined ..... the learned trial court heard the arguments and held the appellant guilty for having committed the offence punishable under section 29, read with section 21(c) of ndps act, and ordered him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years, besides payment of fine of rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees one lac only) and in .....