State of Himachal Pradesh vs Nirmal Kaur @ Nimmo

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 1081

B. R. GAVAI, C. T. RAVIKUMAR
State of Himachal Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Nirmal Kaur @ Nimmo – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. K. Parameshwar, Adv. (A.C.) Mr. M.V. Mukunda, Adv. Ms. A. Sregurupriya, Adv. Ms. Arti Gupta, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, AOR Mrs. Bihu Sharma, Adv. Mr. Akshay C. Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Pratishtha Vij, Adv
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rajendra Sahu, Adv. Mr.Rishabh Sahu, Adv. Ms. Hema Sahu, Adv. Mr. C. L. Sahu, AOR Mr. K.M. Nataraj, ASGI Mr. Sharath Nambiar, Adv. Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Adv. Mr. Chitransh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Nakul Chengappa K.K., Adv.

Judgement Key Points

On the basis of international conventions, courts can make rulings that ensure compliance with international obligations and standards. These conventions often serve as a legal basis for interpreting domestic laws in cases involving international issues, such as trade, human rights, environmental protection, or narcotics regulation (!) . Courts may also hold that national laws must be consistent with the provisions of relevant international conventions, thereby influencing the outcome of cases where international commitments are involved (!) . Additionally, decisions may be guided by the principles and obligations outlined in these conventions to promote uniformity and cooperation in international legal matters (!) .

JUDGMENT :

B.R. Gavai, J.:--

1. A coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 14th August 2018, has framed the following questions for consideration:

(i) Whether it is necessary to particularize the species of the contraband recovered – poppy husk, poppy straw etc.?

(ii) So long as the prosecution proves that what was recovered was the sample of poppy straw and whether it is necessary for the prosecution to bring in materials to show as to what was the species of the contraband recovered?”

2. Since the answer to the aforesaid questions have a bearing on a number of cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the “1985 Act”), this Court, vide its order dated 14th August 2018, had requested Shri P.S. Narasimha, learned Senior Counsel (as he then was) to assist the court as amicus curiae. Shri K. Parameshwar, learned counsel was requested to assist Shri P.S. Narasimha. On the elevation of Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.S. Narasimha, Shri Parameshwar continued to assist this Court as amicus curiae.

Factual Background:

3. On 25th July 2003, when Sarbjeet Singh (PW-12) along with some other police officials were on patrolling duty at Haroli in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2022 Supreme(SC) 1081

B. R. GAVAI, C. T. RAVIKUMARState of Himachal Pradesh – AppellantVersusNirmal Kaur @ Nimmo – Respondent

Cases Referred (15)

B. R. GAVAI, C. T. RAVIKUMAR
State of Himachal Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Nirmal Kaur @ Nimmo – Respondent