Skip to main content

Offence committed at two different places may form part of same criminal conspiracy

In Okechuku Mathew v. State of H.P., 2017, order dated December 29, 2017, High Court of Himachal Pradesh decided a criminal miscellaneous petition filed under Section 439 of CrPC, wherein it declined to grant the relief of bail as prayed for by the petitioner-accused.

The petitioner was accused in a criminal case filed under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. The facts of the case were that 15 gms of heroin was recovered from the possession of the co-accused in this case. He told that he purchased the heroin from the petitioner herein. The incident took place in Kasol, H.P. Police searched the petitioner’s house in Delhi and recovered 1.5 kg of heroin. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire process initiated against the petitioner by the State was illegal and without jurisdiction by the police of the State from a place beyond its jurisdiction and for this reason alone, the petitioner was entitled to be granted bail.

The High Court perused the record and was of the opinion that the recovery was made in the course of investigation which the police was conducting pursuant to the arrest of the co-accused in Kasol. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the process initiated against the petitioner by the State was illegal, void and without jurisdiction was without any merit because it was in the course of investigation of an offence committed in the State of H.P. in which involvement of the present petitioner was alleged, that the petitioner was apprehended with huge quantity of heroin in Delhi. The offence committed by the petitioner at New Delhi and the one committed at Kasol formed part of the same criminal conspiracy.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more