STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH vs KARUNA SHANKER PURI

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 886

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, M. M. SUNDRESH
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH – Appellant
Versus
KARUNA SHANKER PURI – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, AOR Mrs. Bihu Sharma, Adv. Ms. Pratishtha Vij, Adv. Mr. Akshay C. Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Tyagi, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Mahabir Singh, Sr. Adv. Ms. Preeti Singh, AOR Mr. Sunklan Porwal, Adv. Ms. Soumya Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Dinesh Kumar Bhati, Adv. Mr. Veerendra Kumar, Adv. Mr. Jana Kalyan Das, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sandeep Devashish Das, Adv. Mr. Shaswat Sarin, Adv. Mr. Parmanand Gaur, AOR Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, AOR Mr. Abhishek Garg, Adv. Mr. Dhananjay Garg, Adv. Mr. N. Suresha, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Mr. Ritesh Agrawal, AOR Mr. S.L. Gupta, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Sharma, Adv. Ms. Gunjan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Kuldeep Singh Tomar, Adv. Mr. Neeraj Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Shalu Sharma, AOR Mr. Ranji Thomas, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Adv. Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri, AOR Mr. Anil Shrivastav, AOR Mr. Sunil Kumar Verma, AOR Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, AOR Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, AOR Ms. Nidhi, AOR Mr. Sarthak Arora, Adv.

ORDER

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.912/2010,Criminal Appeal No.219/2022 [@ SLP(Crl) No.1541/2014 (II-C)], Crl.A. No.1192/2010,Crl.A.No.1063/2011, Crl.A. No. 1085/2016, Crl.A. No. 1090/2016, Crl.A. No.1092/2016, Crl.A. No.1091/2016, Crl.A. No.107/2017, Criminal Appeal No.2207/2010, Criminal Appeal No.1089/2016 & Criminal Appeal No.1088/2016

Leave granted in SLP [Crl.] No.1541/2014.

2. It is stated by both the counsels for the appellant and the accused that the matters were kept aside in terms of the order dated 12.09.2018 to await the judgment in Hira Singh & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr. case which judgment has now been delivered and reported as Hira Singh & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.- (2020) SCC Online SC 382. This Court has opined on the issue whether the actual content of the weight of the offending drug is to be considered or whether as a whole procedure has to be looked into on the basis of the larger objective of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act to opine as under:

“65. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, Reference is answered as under:

(I) The decision of this Court in the case of E. Michael Raj (supra) taking the view that in the mixture of narcoti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2022 Supreme(SC) 886

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, M. M. SUNDRESHSTATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH – AppellantVersusKARUNA SHANKER PURI – Respondent

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, M. M. SUNDRESH
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH – Appellant
Versus
KARUNA SHANKER PURI – Respondent