Back
THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI AT GUWAHATI (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
Dhan Singh Son Of Late Dhupan Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam – Respondent
ORDER :
SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J.
1. Heard learned counsel, Ms Sutapa Sanyal, for the petitioner and learned Special Public Prosecutor, Mr M Haloi, for the CBI.
2. This application has been filed under Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC, for short), read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 482 CrPC.
2. Sri Dhan Singh will hereinafter be referred to as the applicant or the petitioner. The petitioner has prayed for setting aside the case being CR Case No. 6/1996, in connection with GR Case No. 413/1994, arising out of Tezpur PS Case No. 211/1994, corresponding to CBI Case No. RC-6/1999-SIU, XI-CBI/New Delhi dated 29.10.1999, based on Charge Sheet No. 6/2000 (21.10.2000), under Section 20(b)/25/29, read with Section 8 of the NDPS Act, 1985 pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur, and with prayer to release the petitioner from custody. An alternate prayer was made to expedite the disposal of CR Case No. 6/1996, arising out of GR Case No. 413/1994 or any such order or directions
3. The petitioner’s case in brief is that a secret information was received by the investigating team that a truck bearing Registrati
The right to a speedy trial is fundamental, but serious allegations under the NDPS Act necessitate the continuation of proceedings despite procedural flaws.
Confiscation of vehicle under the NDPS Act requires adherence to procedural fairness, including providing notice and opportunity for hearing to claimants, regardless of their conviction status.
Ownership determination of seized property must await trial completion, and zimma petitions cannot be granted without conclusive evidence of ownership.
The court ruled that a seized vehicle used in drug trafficking remains with authorities until the owner discharges the reverse burden of proof, emphasizing the safeguarding of evidence for trial.
The ownership of a vehicle seized under NDPS Act must be respected if the owner proves lack of knowledge of its illegal use; interim custody can be granted subject to conditions.
The Magistrate/Special Judge has the power to consider the application for interim custody of the vehicle under the provisions of Section 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C., and the Drug Disposal Committee does ....
Seized vehicles must be released to owners when there are no pending confiscation proceedings, emphasizing timely judicial action under the NDPS and Cr.P.C.
Ownership of a vehicle under the NDPS Act creates a presumption of culpable mental state, which the accused must rebut with substantial evidence.
The court upheld the conviction under the NDPS Act, establishing that procedural compliance and evidence corroborate guilt for possession of contraband.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
