NDPS Act - The Legal Chamber

Technicality or Right? Supreme Court Acquits Man, Rules Mandatory NDPS Procedures Were Ignored

5Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Technicality or Right? Supreme Court Acquits Man, Rules Mandatory NDPS Procedures Were Ignored

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay, particularly when the appellant was incarcerated. On merits, the Court acquitted the accused due to fatal procedural lapses: non-compliance with mandatory sampling guidelines under Standing Order No. 1 of 1989 and Section 52A of the NDPS Act, which rendered the seizure and FSL report unreliable. The trial court also erred in clubbing separate recoveries to constitute commercial quantity without evidence of conspiracy under Section 29. Facts Of The Case: On July 16, 2018, based on source information, police apprehended the appellant, Nadeem Ahamed, and a co-accused, Amit Dutta, near Laxmi Store in Kolkata. A search, conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer, led to the recovery o...

Supreme Court Reinstates Drug Case: Acquittal Based on “Same Informant-Investigator” Rule Overturned

The Supreme Court held that an investigation is not automatically vitiated solely because the informant and investigator are the same. This procedural irregularity must be examined on a case-specific basis for bias. The Court overruled the contrary precedent in Mohan Lal and restored the matter for a merits-based hearing. Facts Of The Case: Based on the secret information received on September 20, 2009, police intercepted a truck. The respondent, Gurnam @ Gama, was found sitting on a stack of bags in the cargo area, while the other respondent, Jaswinder Singh, was driving the vehicle. Upon search, the authorities recovered a significant quantity of 750 kilograms of poppy husk along with two motorcycles. Consequently, FIR No. 221 of 2009 was registered under the relevant sections of the N...

Supreme Court : Key NDPS Ruling Courts Can Impose Harsher Sentences Without Specific Reasons

The Supreme Court clarified the interpretation of Section 32-B of the NDPS Act, ruling that courts are not restricted to the factors listed in clauses (a) to (f) for imposing sentences higher than the minimum. The judgment affirmed that judicial discretion allows consideration of additional relevant factors, such as the quantity of contraband, to justify enhanced punishment. It overturned the High Court’s erroneous view that special reasons under Section 32-B were mandatory for exceeding the minimum sentence. The decision reinforces that sentencing flexibility under the NDPS Act remains broad, subject only to reasonableness and relevance of the factors considered. Facts Of The Case: In September 2018, the police in Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh, received information that Narayan Das and anothe...