Back
S.S.M.QUADRI, S.N.PHUKAN
Roy – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
1. Leave to appeal is granted.
2. This Appeal is directed against the order dated June 4,1998 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, dismissing CrI.M.C. No. 2417 of 1996 which was filed by the appellant, praying the Court to quash proceedings in session Case No. 78 of 1993 on the file of Additional sessions Judge, Thodupuzha.
3. The appellant was searched by the Excise Inspector, Devlikulam. On the allegation of recovering 'Ganja' from his possession, the appellant was taken into custody on November 21, 1990. Under s.20(b) (i) of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'the NDPS Act'), a charge was laid against him by the Excise Inspector on February 20,1991, whereas the statutory notification under which he became competent so to do, was issued by the Government of Kerala in G.O. (Ms) No.168/92/TD, authorising officers of and above the rank of Excise Inspectors of the Excise Department to file complaints under s.36A(1)(d) of the NDPS Act, on October 20,1992. On the ground that the Excise Inspector was not authorised to file the charge sheet against the appellant and, therefore the complaint was not maintainable, the appellant was discharg
None identified.
The case law provided does not explicitly indicate it has been overruled, reversed, or treated as bad law in subsequent decisions. The language primarily discusses the legal principles and safeguards under the NDPS Act, particularly relating to search procedures and evidentiary issues, without referencing subsequent judicial treatment that would categorize it as bad law.
Followed / Consistently Cited:
The case emphasizes the importance of informing the person of their rights under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and the consequences of non-compliance, which is a well-established legal principle. Its detailed explanation of procedural safeguards suggests it aligns with the current legal standards and is likely followed in subsequent rulings regarding search procedures under the NDPS Act.
Distinguished / Clarified:
The case clarifies that an illicit article seized during an illegal search cannot be used as evidence of unlawful possession, but other evidence may be relied upon. This is a specific interpretation of evidentiary law under the NDPS Act and may have been cited for clarification in later cases.
Legal Principles Restated:
The case reiterates that a presumption under Section 54 can only be raised after establishing possession during a proper search, reinforcing the procedural safeguards and evidentiary standards. It serves as a guiding precedent for understanding the interplay between search legality and presumptions.
None.
All language in the case law list is focused on explaining legal principles and procedural safeguards without any indication of subsequent judicial treatment that would render it overruled, reversed, or criticized as bad law. The absence of such references or language suggests that its treatment remains consistent and unchallenged in the context provided.
**Source :** State Of Punjab VS Balbir Singh - Supreme Court State Of Punjab VS Baldev Singh - Supreme Court
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
