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

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

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

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more