AI Overview...

Confession admissibility - Confessions made before officers of the Department of Revenue Intelligence under the NDPS Act are not invalidated by Section 25 of the Evidence Act, 1872, provided certain conditions are met, as established in Paras 9 & 10 of source Francis Stanly alias Stalin VS Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram - Rajasthan.
Role of Intelligence Officers - In Thiruvananthapuram, Intelligence Officers from the Narcotic Control Bureau (NCB) and Revenue Department play a crucial role in intercepting and investigating drug-related offenses, including receiving reliable information, conducting searches, and issuing summons to involved individuals (Sources: SRI B LAL PRASAD vs THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO IV, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - Kerala, Chhotu Ram VS State of Rajasthan through P. P. - Crimes, 01500021473).
Case specifics - On October 1, 2000, an intelligence officer received information about a person waiting in a parking area in East Fort, Thiruvananthapuram, leading to the recovery of heroin and subsequent investigations involving suspects near the District Jail premises (Francis Stanly alias Stalin VS Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram - Rajasthan, Ashraf VS State of Kerala - Crimes).
Legal considerations - Statements made to Customs Officers, who are not police officers, are admissible under Section 25 of the NDPS Act, as clarified in case law (e.g., Francis Stanley v. Narcotic Control Bureau, Rajesh Salecha VS Intelligence Officer Narcotic Control Bureau South Zone - Madras).
Investigation procedures - Individuals such as K.K. Ashraf and others were summoned by the NCB after being found near the jail, based on reliable intelligence about drug involvement, demonstrating the proactive role of intelligence officers in drug enforcement (K. K. Ashraf VS State of Kerala - Kerala, Ashraf VS State of Kerala - Crimes).
Other regulatory actions - Intelligence squads also conduct inspections for regulatory violations, such as in the case of an abkari contractor, highlighting the broader scope of intelligence agencies in enforcement beyond narcotics (BIJU RAMESH VS INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO. I, AGRICULTURAL INCOME-TAX AND SALES TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - Kerala).
Legal challenges and bail - Cases involving large quantities of contraband, like poppy, often see legal contention over bail, with public prosecutors opposing bail applications in Thiruvananthapuram, reflecting the seriousness of narcotics offenses (SUDHIR VISHNOI VS CENTRAL BUREAU OF NARCOTICS - Rajasthan).

Analysis and Conclusion:
Intelligence officers in Thiruvananthapuram, particularly from the Narcotic Control Bureau and Revenue Department, are pivotal in drug law enforcement, receiving credible intelligence, conducting investigations, and making recoveries. Their actions and statements are recognized as admissible in court, provided legal protocols are followed, especially regarding confessions. The judicial system emphasizes the importance of proper procedures in handling confessions and evidence, while also dealing stringently with narcotics offenses, often opposing bail for large-scale drug offenders. Overall, these sources underscore the proactive and legally supported role of intelligence officers in combating drug trafficking in Thiruvananthapuram.

Search Results for "Intelligence Officer Thiruvananthapuram"

Francis Stanly alias Stalin VS Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram

2006 0 Supreme(Raj) 2651 • India - Rajasthan

S.B.SINHA, MARKANDEY KATJU

Act – Held – Confession made before officer of the Department of Revenue Intelligence under the NDPS Act is not hit by Sec. 25 of ... (Paras 9 & 10)(b) Evidence Act, 1872, Sec. 25 and Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Confession made before officer ... The prosecution case briefly stated is that on 1.10.2000 at 3.45 P.M., PW7, Radhesh, Intelligence Officer, received information that one person was standing in the parking area between Gandhi Park and Pattomthanu Pillai Park at East F....

SRI B LAL PRASAD vs THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO IV, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

2016 Supreme(Online)(KER) 26672 • India - High Court of Kerala

A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J

Francis Stanly @ Stalin VS Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram

2007 1 Supreme 804 • India - Supreme Court

S.B.SINHA, MARKANDEY KATJU

8/21 —Recovery of one kg. of heroin from possession of accused No. 1 apprehended by Intelligence ... The prosecution case briefly stated is that on 1.10.2000 at 3.45 P.M., PW7, Radhesh, Intelligence Officer, received information that one person was standing in the parking area between Gandhi Park and Pattomthanu Pillai Park at East Fort, Thiruvananthapuram waiting for somebody to dispose of about one ... It is true that in the present case the confession was made by the accused not before an ordinary police off....

Chhotu Ram VS State of Rajasthan through P. P.

• India - Crimes

GUMAN SINGH

Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram1 and Lachhu @ Laxmi Narain v. Union of India2 on the point of application under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. 3.

2007 0 Supreme(Raj) 949 • India - Rajasthan

GUMAN SINGH

Intelligence officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, thiruvananthapuram and Lachhu @ laxmi Narain v. Union of India on the point of application under Section 67 of the ndps Act.

2009 0 Supreme(Ker) 822 • India - Kerala

K.T.SANKARAN

Later, K.K.Ashraf (the petitioner) and two of his friends (Saud Siraj and Mohammad Sajjad) were found near the District Jail premises of Thiruvananthapuram. On satisfying that they were also involved in the offence, summons were issued to them to appear before the Intelligence Officer. ... The prosecution case is that the Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram received reliable information that one Shanavas of Kottackal, Malappuram District (first accused) wa....

Rajesh Salecha VS Intelligence Officer Narcotic Control Bureau South Zone

2009 0 Supreme(Mad) 693 • India - Madras

K.MOHAN RAM

The statements would not be inadmissible under S.25 of the Act as Customs Officers are not Police Officers. ... b. (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 618 (Francis Stanly Alias Stalin v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram). ... Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, South Zone, Chennai). ... 8. ... It is true that in the present case the confession was made by the accused not before an ordinary police officer, but before an #....

• India - Crimes

K.T.SANKARAN

Ashraf (the petitioner) and two of his friends (Saud Siraj and Mohammad Sajjad) were found near the District Jail premises of Thiruvananthapuram. On satisfying that they were also involved in the offence summons were issued to them to appear before the Intelligence Officer. ... The prosecution case is that the Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram received reliable information that one Shanavas of Kottackal, Malappuram District (first accused) was indulging....

BIJU RAMESH VS INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO. I, AGRICULTURAL INCOME-TAX AND SALES TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

1996 0 Supreme(Ker) 418 • India - Kerala

G.SIVARAJAN

Fact of the Case: The petitioner, an abkari contractor, was inspected by the Intelligence Squad for not maintaining ... There was an inspection in the business premises of the petitioner by the Intelligence Squad, Thiruvananthapuram on June 6, 1988 and they verified the physical stock of certain items found there. Later, the Intelligence Officer, Squad No. ... June 6, 1988 revealed certain irregularities and that on the basis of the application for compounding filed by the petitioner, the In....

SUDHIR VISHNOI VS CENTRAL BUREAU OF NARCOTICS

2007 0 Supreme(Raj) 1172 • India - Rajasthan

J.R.GOYAL

Intelligence officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, thiruvananthapuram. , 2007 RCC ... ( 4 ) ON the other hand, learned Special public Prosecutor vehemently opposed this bail application and contended that huge quantity of contraband substance poppy

Filter by Legal Phrase

Legal Issues on Supreme Today AI

Approbate and Reprobate: Key Legal Doctrine Explained Vague Threatening Phone Calls: Why They Fail in Court Does SCC Own Copyright on Full Text Judgments? G.O. Ms No. 108: TN Salesman & Packer Recruitment Rules Article 226 vs 227: Key Differences in High Court Powers Judgments on One-Time GNA Charges in India TIP: Judicial vs Executive Magistrate Rules Explained Can a Sole Dissenting Member Block Society Redevelopment? How to Sue Fake Facebook Accounts for Defamation in India Illustrations: Person Dominating Will in Indian Law Perusal in Court Orders: What It Means in Law Litigant Vigilance: Essential Duty in Court Proceedings What to Do If Company Suit Signatory Dies Renting House Without Rent Agreement in India: Risks Stay on Money Realization After Ejectment: Is It Possible?