Tamil Nadu - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Ruling: Drug Disposal Committee Cannot Overtake Court’s Power to Release Seized Vehicles

4Jan

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Ruling: Drug Disposal Committee Cannot Overtake Court’s Power to Release Seized Vehicles

The Supreme Court held that the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022 do not oust the jurisdiction of Special Courts to grant interim custody of vehicles seized under the NDPS Act. The statutory power of courts under Sections 60(3) and 63 of the NDPS Act, read with relevant CrPC/BNSS provisions for interim release, remains operative independently of the administrative disposal mechanism under the 2022 Rules. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Denash, is the owner of a lorry (TN 52 Q 0315) which was lawfully hired to transport iron sheets from Chhattisgarh to Tamil Nadu. On 14th July 2024, during transit, police intercepted the vehicle and recovered a total of 6 kilograms of Ganja. The contraband was found concealed benea...

Supreme Court Overturns Conviction Under Section 306 IPC: Limits on High Court’s Revisional Powers

The Supreme Court of India, in Nagarajan v. State of Tamil Nadu, held that in an appeal filed by an accused against conviction, the High Court cannot suo motu exercise revisional powers to enhance the sentence or convict on a charge for which the trial court acquitted the accused, especially when no appeal or revision was filed by the State, victim, or complainant. The Court emphasized the principle of no reformatio in peius, meaning an appellant should not be placed in a worse position as a result of filing an appeal Facts Of The Case: Nagarajan, the appellant, was the neighbor of the deceased, Mariammal. On the night of July 11, 2003, the appellant entered Mariammal's room, hugged her, and attempted to outrage her modesty. Mariammal's mother-in-law intervened, scolded the appel...

From Life Imprisonment to Freedom: Supreme Court Cites “Misreading of Evidence” in Acquittal

The Supreme Court, exercising its appellate jurisdiction under Article 136, set aside the concurrent convictions of the appellants, finding that the Trial Court and High Court had misread and ignored striking features of the prosecution's evidence. The Court highlighted issues with witness credibility, unexplained delays in statements, and unreliable corroborating evidence, concluding that guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt Facts Of The Case: In 2011, the wife of PW-1 won the Panchayat Board elections, a position held by Accused No. 1's family for approximately four decades. This led to numerous skirmishes between the two sides in the months following the elections. On the night of November 14, 2012, PW-1's brother (Deceased No. 1), his son (Deceased No. 2), and daughter (PW-9)...