Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Umar Abdul Sakoor Sorathia VS Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, New Delhi...
1999 6 Supreme 385 : The court held that at the stage of framing charge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it is not required to go into the probative value of the materials. If the materials on record are sufficient to conclude that the accused may have committed the offence under Section 29 of the NDPS Act (read with Section 28), the court is obliged to frame the charge and proceed to trial. The fact that the appellant was the Chairman of M/s. Miami Travels and Tours Ltd.—the clearing agency that took delivery of the consignment of mandrox tablets—constituted a very material and incriminating circumstance, which, if established, would strongly support the prosecution''''s case. The plea for discharge based on foreign police communications (letter and fax) stating no material was collected to connect the appellant was held untenable, as such views from foreign police cannot foreclose the Indian investigation or the court''''s conclusion. Therefore, the charge under Section 29 of the NDPS Act could be validly framed based on the available material.Checking relevance for Ajay Kumar Gupta VS Union of India...
2024 6 Supreme 189 : The court held that the conviction of the appellant under Section 29 of the NDPS Act cannot be sustained due to lack of evidence establishing the appellant''''s participation in the offence. Specifically, there was no recovery of any incriminating material from the appellant, no evidence of supply of contraband by the appellant to accused no.1, no proof of conspiracy involving the appellant, and no charge framed under Section 29 of the NDPS Act. The court emphasized that the prosecution failed to prove the offence under Section 29 beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore, the conviction under Section 29 cannot stand. The appellant was acquitted of all charges, including those under Section 29, as the prosecution did not establish the necessary elements of the offence.Checking relevance for Muhammed Aslam K. M Vs State Of Kerala...
2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 830 : The court held that the mere fact of arranging a vehicle for co-accused to escape and telephonic communication with them is insufficient to sustain charges under Section 29 of the NDPS Act. The court emphasized that evidence of facilitation of escape and communication alone does not attract Section 29, and in the absence of contraband or direct involvement in possession or trafficking, the charges cannot be sustained. The court granted bail to the 7th accused, noting the lack of evidence to support charges under Section 29, and observed that the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be relaxed when evidence is insufficient. This constitutes a defense-oriented approach to discharge or acquittal under Section 29, based on lack of evidence and absence of contraband.Checking relevance for Surinder Kumar Khanna VS Intelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue Intelligence...
2018 0 Supreme(SC) 744 : An accused cannot be convicted purely on the basis of the statement of a co-accused under Section 29 of the NDPS Act. The Supreme Court has held that a confessional statement of a co-accused is not a substantive piece of evidence against another co-accused, and in the absence of any other substantive evidence, an accused cannot be convicted solely on such statements. This principle applies specifically to cases under Section 29 of the NDPS Act, where conviction requires more than just incriminating statements from co-accused individuals.Checking relevance for Ranjan Kumar Chadha VS State of Himachal Pradesh...
2023 7 Supreme 644 : Section 50 of the NDPS Act applies only to the personal search of an accused person, not to the search of bags, articles, or containers carried by the accused. The recovery of contraband from a bag does not trigger the application of Section 50, and non-compliance with Section 50 in such circumstances does not vitiate the recovery or the conviction. The High Court was correct in holding that Section 50 was not required to be complied with when contraband was recovered from a bag, as the provision is inapplicable to searches of baggage or articles carried by the accused.
