NDPS Act

New Delhi (ILNS): The Su...

The Delhi High Court has observed in a bail application that “it was the court’s obligation to inform the petitioner of his right to bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.PC.”

In a landmark judgment, the Court held that confession to officers under the Act is not admissible as evidence during trial and infringes on the Constitution. This will have ramifications for the Rhea Chakraborty case as well as others.

The Supreme Court has held with a 2 is to 1 majority that the confession made under section 67 before the officers of the Central and State agencies appointed under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act are not admissible, because the officers are police officers.

As initially enacted for example Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) 1985 (hereinafter alluded to as 'the Act'), there existed no distinction between a drug trafficker and an addict. A uniform sentence construction was specified as punishment for most offences under the Act.

The Supreme Court has burrowed through the labyrinth that Section 50 of the NDPS Act is and ruled that the section was applicable only in the case of personal search.

The bench, comprising Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M R Shah and S. Ravindra Bhat observed: “Merely because the informant and the investigating officer is the same, it cannot be said that the investigation is biased and the trial is vitiated.”

A division bench of Justices S.K. Kaul and K.M. Joseph issued their judgement in an appeal against order of the High Court that allowed quashing of FIR for offences committed under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

The Orissa High Court has granted bail to an accused in a case falling within the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, by applying the ‘doctrine of parity.’

Conviction could not be based on a foundation of conjectures and surmises to conclude guilt of the accused without establishing it beyond reasonable doubt, Supreme Court