Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“The requirement of informing the person arrested of the grounds of arrest is not a formality but a mandatory statutory and constitutional requirement, and the non-compliance with Article 22(1) is a violation of a fundamental right and of the right to personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.”
“When lawyers boycott the Courts, it directly violates the rights of the litigants to speedy justice, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.”
“The petitioner was found in possession of 3.670 kilograms of charas, which was a commercial quantity and hence, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act applied to the present case.”
“If a detenue satisfied the Court that there was an unexplained delay in execution of the detention order, then such an order would be interpreted as breaking the live-proximity link in between the event of detention and passing of the detention order.”
“The increasing instances of drug smuggling through drones in India from across the border i.e. Pakistan pose a grave threat not only to the security of the nation but also impacts the youth of the nation.”
“The accused’s plea that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to him, appeared to be correct and was supported by the memo of arrest, with no contrary document filed by the State.”
“Since preventive detention, is an anathema to personal liberty, one has to give equal credence and weightage to the personal liberties of a person which are proposed to be suspended by way of the order of preventive detention.”
“In the present case, Additional Advocate General contended that the police had taken the blood samples of the petitioner and the co-accused and had sent them to FSL for analysis, the result of which was still awaited.”
“The interpretative endeavor must be a dynamic and teleological one, ensuring that the NDPS Act remains an efficacious instrument in combating the pervasive menace of drug abuse, rather than being rendered sterile by a rigid textual analysis.”
“Neither in the arrest intimation nor in the arrest memo is there anything to indicate that the grounds for arrest were communicated to the accused.”
The Court observed that the accused persons are not just normal employees but participated in misbranding of the controlled substance as normal drug. They have also actively assisted their employer in transporting huge quantity of controlled substance under concealed identity.
The accused has continuously maintained that he had no knowledge of the parcel and was only collecting it for his neighbour. In this regard, he even showed the NCB officials the WhatsApp message sent to him by his neighbour instructing him to go to collect the parcel. The role ascribed to the accused appears confined to the act of collecting the parcel. There are no incriminating call records, financial transactions or digital communications that show that the accused had purchased any of the contraband seized from him.
The Court observed that accused prima facie seems to be involved in organized narcotic network and has been frequently in touch with the main supplier of the contraband and with the receiver of the contraband.
Shine Tom Chacko and others were arrested by the police, suspecting cocaine and other narcotic substances use during a party.
In the present case, since the charas and ganja seized from the accused were of small quantities, the question to be decided by the Court is whether the mushroom and magic mushroom capsules together can be considered as commercial quantity.
“Such individuals, who were involved in trafficking even modest amounts of contraband, were akin to termites eroding the fabric of society. It is imperative that in such cases, the Court takes a firm and resolute stance, addressing them with the utmost severity to curb this insidious menace.”
“The criminal liability against the appellant is fastened basing on the so-called version of Accused 1 and 2 which is nothing but confession by exonerating the two accused. The whole approach of the Trial Court in appreciating the evidence on record is not in accordance with law.”
The accused had spent nearly 6 years and 2 months in jail, which is more than half the period of punishment for the offences he was charged with.
The accused person required special consideration to get proper treatment or to recuperate from her suffering in an environment congenial to her.