Skip to main content

Search for narcotics only before gazetted officer or magistrate - Bombay HC

Bombay High Court: Acquitting a South African woman of the charges of possessing narcotic substances, a division bench comprising of VK Tahilramani and VL Achilya, JJ observed that Air Intelligence Unit (AIU) had failed to follow the proper procedure of informing the suspect that he/she had the ‘right’ to be searched before a gazetted officer or magistrate. In the present case, the suspect was searched at the airport and a bag of heroin was found from a false bottom in her belongings. Thereafter, she was sentenced to life imprisonment by a special court. The Counsel for the appellant argued that the accused person has a right under Section 50 of the NDPS Act to be searched only before a gazetted officer or a magistrate. The officers have to inform the accused of this right and then carry out the search. Accepting this, the Court noted that informing an accused of his or her right is ‘not an empty formality’. The Court stated that such a requirement of law prescribed under Section 50 cannot be dealt with lightly by the courts dealing with the trial of such offences. It is well settled that the offence committed under NDPS Act is a grave one, therefore procedural safeguards provided therein have to be strictly complied with. [Thulile Goodness Dhalmini vs. Union of India, Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2013, decided on April 8, 2014]

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more