where the narcotic drug or psychotropic substance consumed is cocaine, morphine, diacetylmorphine or any other narcotic drug or any psychotropic substance as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to twenty thousand rupees; or with both
A Committee has been constituted under the Chairpersonship of the Vice Chancellor, National Law University, Delhi to suggest reforms in the Criminal laws.
When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence punishable under section 379 or section 380 or section 381 or section 404 or section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860) or any offence punishable with imprisonment for not more than two years, or with fine, or with both, under the Indian Penal Code
The Latin maxim salus populi suprema lex (the safety of the people is the supreme law) and salus republicae suprema lex (safety of the State is the supreme law) coexist and are not only important and relevant but lie at the heart of the doctrine that the welfare of an individual must yield to that of the community. The action of the State, however, must be ‘right, just and fair
The Westminister Magistrate Court has ruled that Abhay Thipsay ‘s evidence need not be in private. Abhay Thipsay had joined the Congress party and stated that he was aware of high profile cases. Abhay Thipsay was a retired judge who served in the Bombay and Allahabad High Court had told the London Court via video link that the charges leveled by the CBI against fraud Nirav Modi that includes criminal conspiracy, cheating, dishonesty inducing delivery of property would not stand up under the Indian law.
Whether a convict who has challenged his conviction u/s 374 is entitled to benefit of Sec 436A of CrPC 1973 for Bail?
The words ‘during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial’ used in Section 436-A and the insertion of the said section in Chapter XXXIII, without insertion of a like provision in Chapter XXIX, clearly restricts its operation to the matter of grant of bail at the trial stage and not at the appellate stage. Further, Section 436-A refers to the maximum period of imprisonment specified for the offence in question, and not to the period of imprisonment actually imposed.
Gravity of offence is not relevant consideration for refusing bail to the juvenile- Allahabad HC-07/08/2020
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015-This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the impugned orders. The juvenile is clearly below 16 years of age and does not fall into that special category of a juvenile between the age of 16 and 18 years whose case may be viewed differently, in case, they are found to be of a mature mind and persons well understanding the consequences of their actions.
Last it be remembered that the arrest of a person involves an encroachment on his/her personal liberty. Article 21 of the Constitution of India declares that no person shall be deprived of his personal liberty and life except in accordance with procedure established by law. There can be no doubt that the power to arrest any person therefore must be premised on a law which authorizes the same. Police has a statutory duty to inform the arrestee of the grounds for such arrest as contemplated under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 of the Code. If police failed to dischurge its statutory duty the Magistrate must Perform it before remanding the arrested person.
Section 157 appears to contemplate information received under Section 154 or knowledge gained otherwise about the commission of a cognizance offence clothing the police officer with the power to investigate leading to the sending of the report to the Magistrate being confined to cases where officer intends to send the police report which has been defined as the report under Section 173 of the CrPC.
Prashant Bhushan Contempt Case: SC ordered, either deposit fine or face 3 months SI plus 3 yrs expulsion from practice-31/8/2020
The Supreme Court on Monday imposed a fine of Re 1 on activist-lawyer Prashant Bhushan for criminal contempt of court for his tweets against the Apex court and Chief Justice of India (CJI). The Supreme court Said said that if Bhushan fails to deposit the amount by September 15, he will have to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and will be barred from practising for three years.
Very recently, in the matter of State of Kerala Etc. v. Rajesh Etc.[AIR 2020 SC 721], their Lordships of the Supreme Court followed the principles of law laid down in Ram Samujh’s case (supra) and clearly held that Section 37 of the NDPS Act commences with non-obstante clause and the conditions enumerated in Section 37(1)(b) have to be complied before admitting the accused on bail of the aforesaid offence under the Act in case of commercial quantity.
The law of bails, like any other branch of law, has its own philosophy, and occupies an important place in the administration of justice and the concept of bail emerges from the conflict between the police power to restrict the liberty of a man who is alleged to have committed a crime and the presumption of innocence in favour of the alleged criminal.
It is fairly well settled that the remedy of appeal is creature of the Statute. Unless same is provided either under Code of Criminal Procedure or by any other law for the time being in force no appeal, seeking enhancement of sentence at the instance of the victim, is maintainable.
These NDPS connected questions are helpful for investigators, criminal practitioners, judicial officers and Job aspirants.
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985—Section 8/21(b)—Recovery of smack powde- the alleged narcotic powder seized from the possession of the accused, including the Appellant was never produced before the trial court as a material exhibit and once again there is no explanation for its nonproduction. There is, thus, no evidence to connect the forensic report with the substance that was seized from the possession of the Appellant or the other accused.
Whether it is must for officers of gazetted rank to comply with Sec 42 OR analyse Sec 41 & 42 of NDPS Act
G. Srinivas Goud Versus State of ANDHRA PRADESH-Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985—Section 41(2)—Search and seizure—Authorisation—Officer of gazetted rank can either himself make arrest or conduct search or authorise an officer subordinate to him.
Amarsingh Ramjibhai Barot Versus State of Gujarat-NDPS- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985—Section 21(a)(b)(c), Section 2(vii a) and 2(xxiii a)—Manufactured drug—”Small quantity” and “commercial quantity”—By notification dated 19.10.2001 Central Government categorized manufactured drug weighing 5 gms as “small quantity” and 250 gms as “commercial quantity”
NDPS-This Court in Gurbax Singh vs. State of Haryana (2001) 3 SCC 28 held that these provisions are not mandatory provisions and they are only directory. In the present case, we do not find any serious violation of these provisions. The prosecution adduced evidence to prove that these provisions have been substantially complied with and the Sessions Judge discussed these matters in detail and accepted the prosecution case.
Commercial quantity, in relation to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, means any quantity greater than the quantity specified by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette
All offences under this Act which are punishable with imprisonment for a term of more than three years shall be triable only by the Special Court constituted for the area in which the offence has been committed or where there are more Special Courts than one for such area, by such one of them as may be specified in this behalf by the Government;