{"id":235120,"date":"2020-08-31T22:54:11","date_gmt":"2020-08-31T17:24:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=235120"},"modified":"2020-09-04T11:24:21","modified_gmt":"2020-09-04T05:54:21","slug":"accused-under-ndps-act-not-entitled-to-acquittal-as-a-blanket-rule-merely-because-the-complainant-is-the-investigating-officer-5-judge-bench","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/08\/31\/accused-under-ndps-act-not-entitled-to-acquittal-as-a-blanket-rule-merely-because-the-complainant-is-the-investigating-officer-5-judge-bench\/","title":{"rendered":"Accused under NDPS Act not entitled to acquittal as a blanket rule merely because the complainant is the investigating officer: 5-Judge Bench"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Supreme Court<\/strong>: The 5-judge Constitution bench of Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, MR Shah and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ has held that the accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) is not entitled to an acquittal as a blanket rule merely because the complainant is the investigating officer. The Court said that<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">\u201c\u2026 merely because the informant is the investigator, by that itself the investigation would not suffer the vice of unfairness or bias and therefore on the sole ground that informant is the investigator, the accused is not entitled to acquittal. The matter has to be decided on a case to case basis.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<h3 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #008000;\"><strong>Discussion on Relevant Provisions of the NDPS Act <\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n<ul style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n<li>Section 50 of the NDPS Act provides that when any officer duly authorised under section 42 is about to search any person under the provisions of section 41, 42 or 43, he shall inform the person to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer of any of the departments mentioned in Section 42 or to the nearest Magistrate and if such person so desires, he shall take such person without unnecessary delay to the nearest Gazetted Officer as mentioned in sub-section 1 of Section 50.<\/li>\n<li>As per Section 50 (5), when an officer duly authorised under section 42 has reason to believe that it is not possible to take the person to be searched to the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate without the possibility of the person to be searched parting with possession of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, or controlled substance or article or document, he may, instead of taking such person to the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, proceed to search the person as provided under Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.<\/li>\n<li>Section 50 (6) provides that after a search is conducted under subsection (5), the officer shall record the reasons for such belief which necessitated such search and within seventy-two hours send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior.<\/li>\n<li>Section 52 of the NDPS Act mandates that any officer arresting a person under Sections 41, 42, 43 or 44 to inform the person arrested of the grounds for such arrest.<\/li>\n<li>Sub-section 2 of Section 52 further provides that every person arrested and article seized under warrant issued under sub-section 1 of Section 41 shall be forwarded without unnecessary delay to the Magistrate by whom the warrant was issued.<\/li>\n<li>As per sub-section 3 of Section 52, every person arrested and article seized under sub-section 2 of Section 41, 42, 43, or 44 shall be forwarded without unnecessary delay to the officer in charge of the nearest police station, or the officer empowered under section 53. That thereafter the investigation is to be conducted by the officer in charge of a police station.<\/li>\n<li>Section 53 of the NDPS Act provides that the Central Government, after consultation with the State Government, may, by notification published in the Official Gazette, invest any officer of the department of central excise, narcotics, customs, revenue intelligence or any other department of the Central Government including para-military forces or armed forces or any class of such officers with the powers of an officer in charge of a police station for the investigation of the offences under the NDPS Act.<\/li>\n<li>Sub-section 2 of Section 53 provides that the State Government, may, by notification published in the Official Gazette, invest any officer of the department of drugs control, revenue or excise or any other department or any class of such officers with the powers of an officer in charge of a police station for the investigation of offences under the NDPS Act.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #008000;\"><strong>Constitution Bench\u2019s observations of the aforesaid provisions<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">\u201cIt appears that the legislature in its wisdom has never thought that the officers authorised to exercise the powers under Sections 41, 42, 43 and 44 cannot be the officer in charge of a police station for the investigation of the offences under the NDPS Act.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Noticing that other persons authorised by the Central Government or the State Government can be the officer in charge of a police station for the investigation of the offences, the Court said that Section 53 does not speak that all those officers to be authorised to exercise the powers of an officer in charge of a police station for the investigation of the offences under the NDPS Act shall be other than those officers authorised under Sections 41, 42, 43, and 44 of the NDPS Act.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Investigation includes even search and seizure. As the investigation is to be carried out by the officer in charge of a police station and none other and therefore purposely Section 53 authorises the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, invest any officer of the department of drugs control, revenue or excise or any other department or any class of such officers with the powers of an officer in charge of a police station for the investigation of offences under the NDPS Act.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Further, Section 42 confers power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorisation to any such officer as mentioned in Section 42 including any such officer of the revenue, drugs control, excise, police or any other department of a State Government or the Central Government, as the case may be, and Section 53 authorises the Central Government to invest any officer of the department of central excise, narcotics, customs, revenue intelligence or any other department of the Central Government\u2026.or any class of such officers with the powers of an officer in charge of a police station for the investigation. Similar powers are with the State Government.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The only change in Sections 42 and 53 is that in Section 42 the word \u201cpolice\u201d is there, however in Section 53 the word \u201cpolice\u201d is not there.<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">\u201cThere is an obvious reason as for police such requirement is not warranted as he always can be the officer in charge of a police station as per the definition of an \u201cofficer in charge of a police station\u201d as defined under the Cr. P.C.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">It was, therefore, noticed that as such, the NDPS Act does not specifically bar the informant\/complainant to be an investigator and officer in charge of a police station for the investigation of the offences under the NDPS Act. On the contrary, it permits, as observed hereinabove.<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">\u201cTo take a contrary view would be amending Section 53 and the relevant provisions of the NDPS Act and\/or adding something which is not there, which is not permissible.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Court also highlighted that <strong><span style=\"color: #800000;\">the statute itself has provided the punishment as per section 58 and it is an offence under section 58 which is a cognizable offence and such an offence is required to be investigated by the \u201cofficer in charge of a police station\u201d other than the officer who exercised the power of entry, search, seizure or arrest under Sections 42, 43, or 44 as naturally in such a case he would be a proposed accused and therefore he cannot be permitted to investigate and to be a judge in his own cause<\/span>.<\/strong> However, so far as the investigation against the accused for the offence under the NDPS Act is concerned, the same analogy may not apply for the reasons stated hereinabove.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Court, hence, concluded that there is no reason to doubt the credibility of the informant and doubt the entire case of the prosecution solely on the ground that the informant has investigated the case. Solely on the basis of some apprehension or the doubts, the entire prosecution version cannot be discarded and the accused is not to be straightway acquitted unless and until the accused is able to establish and prove the bias and the prejudice.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Considering the NDPS Act being a special Act with special procedure to be followed under Chapter V, and there is no specific bar against conducting the investigation by the informant himself and in view of the safeguard provided under the Act itself, namely, Section 58, the Court was of the opinion that there cannot be any general proposition of law to be laid down that in every case where the informant is the investigator, the trial is vitiated and the accused is entitled to acquittal.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Similarly, even with respect to offences under the IPC, as observed hereinabove, there is no specific bar against the informant\/complainant investigating the case.<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">\u201cOnly in a case where the accused has been able to establish and prove the bias and\/or unfair investigation by the informant-cuminvestigator and the case of the prosecution is merely based upon the deposition of the informant-cum-investigator, meaning thereby prosecution does not rely upon other witnesses, more particularly the independent witnesses, in that case, where the complainant himself had conducted the investigation, such aspect of the matter can certainly be given due weightage while assessing the evidence on record.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">[Mukesh v. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi), <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/8D03bS5q\"><b>2020 SCC OnLine SC 700<\/b><\/a>, decided on 31.08.2020]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court: The 5-judge Constitution bench of Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, MR Shah and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ has held <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121,"featured_media":154914,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,38282],"tags":[33719,22614,7841],"class_list":["post-235120","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-decisions-of-the-constitution-benches-of-the-supreme-court","tag-informant","tag-investigating-officer","tag-ndps"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.4 (Yoast SEO v26.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Accused under NDPS Act not entitled to acquittal as a blanket rule merely because the complainant is the investigating officer: 5-Judge Bench | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/08\/31\/accused-under-ndps-act-not-entitled-to-acquittal-as-a-blanket-rule-merely-because-the-complainant-is-the-investigating-officer-5-judge-bench\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Accused under NDPS Act not entitled to acquittal as a blanket rule merely because the complainant is the investigating officer: 5-Judge Bench\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court: The 5-judge Constitution bench of Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, MR Shah and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ has held\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/08\/31\/accused-under-ndps-act-not-entitled-to-acquittal-as-a-blanket-rule-merely-because-the-complainant-is-the-investigating-officer-5-judge-bench\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2020-08-31T17:24:11+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2020-09-04T05:54:21+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Prachi Bhardwaj\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Prachi Bhardwaj\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/08\/31\/accused-under-ndps-act-not-entitled-to-acquittal-as-a-blanket-rule-merely-because-the-complainant-is-the-investigating-officer-5-judge-bench\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/08\/31\/accused-under-ndps-act-not-entitled-to-acquittal-as-a-blanket-rule-merely-because-the-complainant-is-the-investigating-officer-5-judge-bench\/\",\"name\":\"Accused under NDPS Act not entitled to acquittal as a blanket rule merely because the complainant is the investigating officer: 5-Judge Bench | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/08\/31\/accused-under-ndps-act-not-entitled-to-acquittal-as-a-blanket-rule-merely-because-the-complainant-is-the-investigating-officer-5-judge-bench\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/08\/31\/accused-under-ndps-act-not-entitled-to-acquittal-as-a-blanket-rule-merely-because-the-complainant-is-the-investigating-officer-5-judge-bench\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2020-08-31T17:24:11+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2020-09-04T05:54:21+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/de579aff4bc6dd24b68d6d472ac92942\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/08\/31\/accused-under-ndps-act-not-entitled-to-acquittal-as-a-blanket-rule-merely-because-the-complainant-is-the-investigating-officer-5-judge-bench\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/08\/31\/accused-under-ndps-act-not-entitled-to-acquittal-as-a-blanket-rule-merely-because-the-complainant-is-the-investigating-officer-5-judge-bench\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/08\/31\/accused-under-ndps-act-not-entitled-to-acquittal-as-a-blanket-rule-merely-because-the-complainant-is-the-investigating-officer-5-judge-bench\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/08\/31\/accused-under-ndps-act-not-entitled-to-acquittal-as-a-blanket-rule-merely-because-the-complainant-is-the-investigating-officer-5-judge-bench\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Accused under NDPS Act not entitled to acquittal as a blanket rule merely because the complainant is the investigating officer: 5-Judge Bench\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/de579aff4bc6dd24b68d6d472ac92942\",\"name\":\"Prachi Bhardwaj\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Prachi-Image2-150x150.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Prachi-Image2-150x150.png\",\"caption\":\"Prachi Bhardwaj\"},\"description\":\"Senior Associate Editor\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_3\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Accused under NDPS Act not entitled to acquittal as a blanket rule merely because the complainant is the investigating officer: 5-Judge Bench | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/08\/31\/accused-under-ndps-act-not-entitled-to-acquittal-as-a-blanket-rule-merely-because-the-complainant-is-the-investigating-officer-5-judge-bench\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Accused under NDPS Act not entitled to acquittal as a blanket rule merely because the complainant is the investigating officer: 5-Judge Bench","og_description":"Supreme Court: The 5-judge Constitution bench of Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, MR Shah and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ has held","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/08\/31\/accused-under-ndps-act-not-entitled-to-acquittal-as-a-blanket-rule-merely-because-the-complainant-is-the-investigating-officer-5-judge-bench\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2020-08-31T17:24:11+00:00","article_modified_time":"2020-09-04T05:54:21+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Prachi Bhardwaj","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/08\/31\/accused-under-ndps-act-not-entitled-to-acquittal-as-a-blanket-rule-merely-because-the-complainant-is-the-investigating-officer-5-judge-bench\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/08\/31\/accused-under-ndps-act-not-entitled-to-acquittal-as-a-blanket-rule-merely-because-the-complainant-is-the-investigating-officer-5-judge-bench\/","name":"Accused under NDPS Act not entitled to acquittal as a blanket rule merely because the complainant is the investigating officer: 5-Judge Bench | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/08\/31\/accused-under-ndps-act-not-entitled-to-acquittal-as-a-blanket-rule-merely-because-the-complainant-is-the-investigating-officer-5-judge-bench\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/08\/31\/accused-under-ndps-act-not-entitled-to-acquittal-as-a-blanket-rule-merely-because-the-complainant-is-the-investigating-officer-5-judge-bench\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg","datePublished":"2020-08-31T17:24:11+00:00","dateModified":"2020-09-04T05:54:21+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/de579aff4bc6dd24b68d6d472ac92942"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/08\/31\/accused-under-ndps-act-not-entitled-to-acquittal-as-a-blanket-rule-merely-because-the-complainant-is-the-investigating-officer-5-judge-bench\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/08\/31\/accused-under-ndps-act-not-entitled-to-acquittal-as-a-blanket-rule-merely-because-the-complainant-is-the-investigating-officer-5-judge-bench\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/08\/31\/accused-under-ndps-act-not-entitled-to-acquittal-as-a-blanket-rule-merely-because-the-complainant-is-the-investigating-officer-5-judge-bench\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg","width":1330,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/08\/31\/accused-under-ndps-act-not-entitled-to-acquittal-as-a-blanket-rule-merely-because-the-complainant-is-the-investigating-officer-5-judge-bench\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Accused under NDPS Act not entitled to acquittal as a blanket rule merely because the complainant is the investigating officer: 5-Judge Bench"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/de579aff4bc6dd24b68d6d472ac92942","name":"Prachi Bhardwaj","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Prachi-Image2-150x150.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Prachi-Image2-150x150.png","caption":"Prachi Bhardwaj"},"description":"Senior Associate Editor","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_3\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":310646,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/03\/important-ndps-decisions-supreme-court-high-courts-2023\/","url_meta":{"origin":235120,"position":0},"title":"Important NDPS Decisions by Supreme Court and High Courts in 2023","author":"Ridhi","date":"January 3, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"If you are in search of important NDPS Supreme Court judgments, orders of 2023, or for that matter, the judgments and orders of High Courts related to specific aspects of NDPS Act, this blog provides important matters covered in 2023.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Law made Easy&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Law made Easy","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/law-made-easy\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"NDPS decisions Supreme Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/NDPS-decisions-Supreme-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/NDPS-decisions-Supreme-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/NDPS-decisions-Supreme-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/NDPS-decisions-Supreme-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":155814,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/09\/12\/testimony-of-investigating-officer-in-absence-of-supporting-evidence-is-not-enough-to-convict-under-ndps-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":235120,"position":1},"title":"Testimony of investigating officer in absence of supporting evidence is not enough to convict under NDPS Act","author":"Saba","date":"September 12, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of S.P Garg, J held that the sole testimony of the investigating officer cannot be grounds for convicting the accused under the NDPS Act in the absence of other evidence. In this case, an intelligence officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence received a\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":151074,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/08\/22\/absence-of-independent-witness-cannot-be-the-ground-for-acquittal-of-accused-under-ndps-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":235120,"position":2},"title":"Absence of independent witness cannot be the ground for acquittal of accused under NDPS Act","author":"Saba","date":"August 22, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Punjab and Haryana High Court: The appellant in the present case was convicted under S. 15 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and thus, appealed against the sentence before the High Court. The main contention of the petitioner was that the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":33671,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/01\/25\/accused-not-entitled-to-acquittal-on-the-ground-that-investigating-police-officer-was-also-the-complainant\/","url_meta":{"origin":235120,"position":3},"title":"Accused not entitled to acquittal on the ground that investigating police officer was also the complainant","author":"Sucheta","date":"January 25, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: Holding that an accused was not entitled to acquittal on the mere ground that the investigation of the matter had been carried out by the very police officer who had also registered the crime, the Supreme Court observed that in the instant case\u00a0 the search of the appellant\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":326029,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/08\/no-bail-condition-enabling-police-to-constantly-track-movements-and-virtually-peep-into-private-life-accused-supreme-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":235120,"position":4},"title":"Live location Bail Condition enabling police to constantly track movements and virtually peep into private life of accused cannot be imposed: SC","author":"Editor","date":"July 8, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The Court was considering whether a bail condition requiring an accused to share Google Maps Pin with the investigating officer to access his location violates right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Live location bail condition","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/Live-location-bail-condition.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/Live-location-bail-condition.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/Live-location-bail-condition.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/Live-location-bail-condition.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":209772,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/02\/11\/applicability-of-mohan-lal-verdict-ordering-acquittal-in-case-of-informant-and-io-being-the-same-person-revisited\/","url_meta":{"origin":235120,"position":5},"title":"Applicability of &#8216;Mohan Lal&#8217; verdict ordering acquittal in case of informant and IO being the same person, revisited","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"February 11, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: \u00a0The 3-judge bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and Navin Sinha and KM Joseph, JJ has clarified that\u00a0 all\u00a0pending\u00a0criminal\u00a0prosecutions,\u00a0trials\u00a0and\u00a0appeals\u00a0prior\u00a0to\u00a0the law\u00a0laid\u00a0down\u00a0in\u00a0Mohan\u00a0Lal\u00a0vs.\u00a0State of\u00a0Punjab,\u00a0(2018) SCC Online SC 974 shall\u00a0continue\u00a0to\u00a0be\u00a0governed\u00a0by the\u00a0individual\u00a0facts\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0case, as the said judgment cannot be allowed to become a spring board by an accused\u00a0\u00a0 for\u00a0\u00a0 being\u00a0\u00a0 catapulted\u00a0\u00a0 to\u00a0\u00a0 acquittal,\u00a0\u00a0 irrespective\u00a0\u00a0 of\u00a0\u00a0\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/235120","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/121"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=235120"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/235120\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/154914"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=235120"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=235120"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=235120"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}