J. B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence – Appellant
Versus
Raj Kumar Arora – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
J.B. PARDIWALA, J.:
For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the following parts:
| INDEX | |
| A. | FACTUAL MATRIX |
| i. Criminal Appeal No. 1319 of 2013 | |
| ii. Criminal Appeal No. 272 of 2014 | |
| B. | SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES |
| i. Submissions on behalf of the Appellant(s) | |
| a. Criminal Appeal No. 1319 of 2013 | |
| b. Criminal Appeal No. 272 of 2014 | |
| ii. Submissions on behalf of the Respondent(s) | |
| C. | C. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION |
| D. | ANALYSIS |
| i. Whether an offence under Section 8(c) could be said to have been made out when an accused “deals with” psychotropic substances mentioned in the Schedule to the NDPS Act but not figuring in Schedule I of the Rules thereunder. | |
| a. Object of the NDPS Act and the United Nations Convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1971 | |
| b. Relevant Statutory Provisions of the NDPS Act and its Rules | |
| c. Analysing the treatment of substances mentioned in the Schedule to the Act and not in Schedule I of the Rules by previous decisions of this Court | |
| d. The provisions of the NDPS Act and its Rules are “in addition to” the D&C Act and the | |
State of Uttranchal v. Rajesh Kumar Gupta reported in (2007) 1 SCC 355 [Para 16
Union of India & Anr. Vs. Sanjeev V. Deshpande reported in 2014 13 SCC 1 [Para 27]
K. Ravi vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. reported in (2024) SCC OnLine SC 2283 [Para 30]
State of Rajasthan v. Udai Lal reported in (2008) 11 SCC 408 [Para 40]
Hira Singh v. Union of India reported in (2020) 20 SCC 272 [Para 41]
Ouseph alias Thankachan v. State of Kerala
Ravindran alias John and Another v. Superintendent of Customs
Amarsingh Ramjibhai Barot vs. State of Gujarat
Sanjay Kumar Kedia v. Narcotics Control Bureau and Another
D. Ramakrishnan v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau
Union of India and Another v. Sanjeev V. Deshpande
State of Uttaranchal v. Rajesh Kumar Gupta
State of Punjab v. Rakesh Kumar
Chimanlal Jagjivan Das Sheth v. State of Maharashtra
Union of India v. Sanjeev V. Deshpande
Sarwan Kumar and Another v. Madan Lal Aggarwal reported in (2003) 4 SCC 147 [Para 93]
Gian Devi Anand v. Jeevan Kumar and Others reported in (1985) 2 SCC 683 [Para 93]
P.V. George and Others v. State of Kerala and Others reported in (2007) 3 SCC 557 [Para 96]
C. Golak Nath and Others v. State of Punjab and Another reported in AIR 1967 SC 1643 [Para 99]
Baburam v. C.C.Jacob and Others reported in (1999) 3 SCC 362 [Para 100]
Kailash Chand Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and Others reported in (2002) 6 SCC 562 [Para 104]
Deepak Kumar Suthar v. State of Rajasthan reported in (1999) 2 Raj LR 692 [Para 104]
Union of India and Others v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan reported in (1991) 1 SCC 588 [Para 106]
Saurabh Chaudri (Dr.) and Others v. Union of India and Others reported (2004) 5 SCC 618 [Para 115]
Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India reported in (2003) 11 SCC 146 [Para 115]
Jarnail Singh and Others v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta and Others reported in (2022) 10 SCC 595 [Para 117]
M. Nagaraj v. Union of India reported in (2006) 8 SCC 212 [Para 117]
M.A. Murthy v. State of Karnataka reported in (2003) 7 SCC 517 [Para 117]
State of Kerala and Others v. Alassery Mohammed and Others reported in (1978) 2 SCC 386 [Para 119]
Rajal Das Guru Namal Pamanani v. State of Maharashtra reported in (1975) 3 SCC 375 [Para 119]
Ramesh Kumar Soni v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2013) 14 SCC 696 [Para 121]
Soni Devrajbhai Babubhai v. State of Gujarat reported in (1991) 4 SCC 298 [Para 130]
Central Bureau of Investigation v. R.R. Kishore
Subramanian Swamy v. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation and Another
Food Inspector, Calicut Corporation v. Cherukattil Gopalan and Another
Anant Prakash Sinha v. State of Haryana and Another
Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy v. State of A.P.
Sohan Lal and Others v. State of Rajasthan
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.