Professional Documents
Culture Documents
TEXTWISE QUERY
Enter Text
Narcotics
Submit Reset
http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/srgqry.asp2/18/2004 6:15:43 AM
http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrytext.asp
http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrytext.asp2/18/2004 6:16:08 AM
http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=18891&ctext="Narcotics"
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 1139 of 2000
Appeal (crl.) 197 of 2003
PETITIONER:
State Through Narcotics Control Bureau
Sayed Abdul Ala
RESPONDENT:
Kulwant Singh
Intelligence Officer Narcotics Control Bureau
BENCH:
N. SANTOSH HEDGE & B.P. SINGH
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
B.P. Singh, J.
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 2399 of 1986
PETITIONER:
G. Bassi Reddy
RESPONDENT:
International Crops Research Instt. & Anr.
BENCH:
RUMA PAL & B.N. SRIKRISHNA
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
RUMA PAL, J.
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 4589 of 1995
Appeal (civil) 138 of 1989
PETITIONER:
M/s Sunny Industries Private Ltd.
RESPONDENT:
Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta
BENCH:
M.B. SHAH & ARUN KUMAR.
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
Shah, J.
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 1139 of 2000
Appeal (crl.) 197 of 2003
PETITIONER:
State Through Narcotics Control Bureau
Sayed Abdul Ala
RESPONDENT:
Kulwant Singh
Intelligence Officer Narcotics Control Bureau
BENCH:
N. SANTOSH HEDGE & B.P. SINGH.
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
WITH
B.P. Singh, J.
http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrytext.asp?whichpage=2&mypag...ermain%2Efilename&mcount=18&coun=6&ctext="Narcotics"&p=N2/18/2004 6:17:07 AM
http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=19085&ctext="Narcotics"
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 13082002
of 4
PETITIONER:
Jameel Ahmed & Anr.
RESPONDENT:
State of Rajasthan
BENCH:
N. Santosh Hegde & B.P. Singh.
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
SANTOSH HEGDE,J.
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) of 725-
PETITIONER:
State, through Special Cell, New Delhi
RESPONDENT:
Navjot Sandhu @ Afshan Guru & Ors.
BENCH:
S.N. Variava &Brijesh Kumar.
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
S. N. VARIAVA, J.
Leave granted.
Heard parties.
On 13th December, 2001 five terrorist attacked the Parliament of India. After an
encounter, with the security forces, the five terrorists were shot dead. A F.I.R was lodged
by the Station House Officer, Police Station, Parliament Street. A case under Sections
120,120B, 121, 121A, 122, 124, 186, 332, 353, 302, and 307 IPC, Sections 3, 4 and 5 of
the Explosive Substances Act and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act was registered.
Investigation was then initiated. From the slain terrorists apart from arms, ammunitions
and other items, three mobile phones, 6 sim cards and slips of paper containing five
mobile telephone numbers and other two telephone numbers were recovered. It is the
case of the prosecution that due to urgency authorisation to intercept was granted by the
Joint Director of Intelligence Bureau, who was associated with the investigation. It is the
case of the prosecution that this authorisation was as per the provisions of the Telegraph
Act i.e. Section 5 of the Telegraph Act read with Rule 419A. It is the case of the
prosecution that the interception disclosed the involvement of the respondents in the
conspiracy to attack the Parliament of India. It is the case of the prosecution that as a
result of the interceptions and the interrogation of the respondents, it was disclosed that
the slain terrorists and the respondents were in touch with one Ghazi Baba, who is a
Pakistani national and the supreme commander of Jaish-e-Mohammed which is a notified
and banned terrorist organisation under Section 18 of Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002
and the schedule thereto (the Prevention of Terrorism Act will hereinafter be referred to
as POTA). It is the case of the prosecution that after the investigating officers had, in the
course of the investigation, collected the relevant and cogent material it was found that a
case under POTA was made out. It is the case of the prosecution that relevant sections of
POTA were added on 19th December, 2001 only after it was ensured that offences under
POTA were made out. It is the case of the prosecution that this was done in view of the
well established law laid down by this Court, in the context of TADA, that there must be
due application of mind and cogent material before the special rigorous regime is added.
It is the case of the prosecution that on 31st December, 2001 and 19th January, 2002 the
Home Secretary approved the interception.
It is the case of the prosecution that after the investigation was completed the
charge-sheet was filed on 14th May, 2002. It is the case of the prosecution that copy of the
transcripts of the intercepted conversation were given to the accused along with the
charge sheet. On 8th July, 2002 the respondents applied before the Special Judge seeking
a direction that the intercepted conversation
http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=19113&ctext="Narcotics" (2 ofnot be used
3)2/18/2004 as evidence
6:17:39 AM in the trial for
http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=19113&ctext="Narcotics"
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 1042 of 2001
PETITIONER:
Narcotics Control Bureau, Mumbai
RESPONDENT:
Vs.
BENCH:
N.Santosh Hegde & B.P.Singh.
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
SANTOSH HEGDE,J.
dated 4.12.2000 whereby the High Court allowed the appeal of the
1994.
follows :
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 2769 of 1999
PETITIONER:
Union of India
RESPONDENT:
Vs.
R. Padmanabhan
BENCH:
S. RAJENDRA BABU & DORAISWAMY RAJU.
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
The appellant, Union of India, which lost before the learned Single
Judge in O.P. No.12775 of 1991 and before the Division Bench of the Kerala
The respondent, an IPS Officer, who, at the relevant point of time, was
cases under the Central Excise & Salt Act, Customs Act, Gold Control Order
and Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, to prevent smuggling of gold and other
articles through the coastal areas of Kerala, as well as in other parts of the
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 786 of 2002
PETITIONER:
Madan Lal and Anr.
RESPONDENT:
Vs.
BENCH:
DORAISWAMY RAJU & ARIJIT PASAYAT.
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
WITH
ARIJIT PASAYAT,J
The appellants and one other person faced trial for alleged
All the five accused were found guilty of the alleged offence and
Contact Address
Courts Informatics Devision, National Informatics Centre, A- Block, C.G.O. Complex, Lodi Road,
New Delhi - 110 003, INDIA.
http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/chejudis.asp2/18/2004 6:17:59 AM
http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrytext.asp?whichpage=1&mypagesize=5&sq...rdermain%2Efilename&mcount=18&coun=1&ctitle=&ctext="Narcotics"&p=P
http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrytext.asp?whichpage=1&mypage...2Efilename&mcount=18&coun=1&ctitle=&ctext="Narcotics"&p=P2/18/2004 6:18:02 AM
http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrytext.asp?whichpage=3&mypagesize=5&s...%3Dscordermain%2Efilename&mcount=18&coun=11&ctext="Narcotics"&p=N
http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrytext.asp?whichpage=3&mypag...rmain%2Efilename&mcount=18&coun=11&ctext="Narcotics"&p=N2/18/2004 6:18:06 AM
http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrytext.asp?whichpage=4&mypagesize=5&sq...dermain%2Efilename&mcount=18&coun=11&ctitle=&ctext="Narcotics"&p=L
http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrytext.asp?whichpage=4&mypage...Efilename&mcount=18&coun=11&ctitle=&ctext="Narcotics"&p=L2/18/2004 6:18:08 AM
http://www.judis.nic.in/sc/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=19427&ctext="Narcotics"
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 8161-8162 of 2003
Appeal (civil) 8163-8164 of 2003
PETITIONER:
Union of India and Anr.
RESPONDENT:
Azadi Bachao Andolan and Anr.
BENCH:
Ruma Pal & B.N. Srikrishna.
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
SRIKRISHNA,J.
Leave granted.
FACTS
A: The Agreement
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 103 of 2003
PETITIONER:
Saikou Jabbi
RESPONDENT:
State of Maharashtra
BENCH:
DORAISWAMY RAJU & ARIJIT PASAYAT.
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 1468 of 2003
Special Leave Petition (crl.) 2827 of 2003
PETITIONER:
Union of India
RESPONDENT:
Kuldeep Singh
BENCH:
DORAISWAMY RAJU & ARIJIT PASAYAT.
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
ARIJIT PASAYAT,J
Leave granted.
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 3017 of 1997
Appeal (civil) 2696-2697 of 2003
PETITIONER:
State of Punjab and Anr.
RESPONDENT:
M/s. Devans Modern Brewaries and Anr.
BENCH:
B.N. Agrawal
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
B.N. AGRAWAL,J.
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 414 of 2000
Appeal (civil) 415 of 2000
PETITIONER:
The State of Goa & Anr.
RESPONDENT:
M/s. Colfax Laboratories Ltd. & Anr.
BENCH:
S. Rajendra Babu & G.P. Mathur
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
G.P. Mathur, J.
1.M/s Colfax Laboratories (India) Ltd. and State of Goa have preferred
these appeals by special leave against the judgment and order dated 1.4.1999
of High Court of Bombay (Goa Bench), by which the writ petition preferred
by M/s Colfax Laboratories (India) Ltd. was partly allowed.
2.M/s Colfax Laboratories (India) Ltd. (for short 'Colfax') was granted
a licence to manufacture various types of cosmetics including after shave
lotion under the trade mark 'Old Spice' on 15.4.1968 under the Drugs and
Cosmetics Act. A licence under the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations
(Excise Duties) Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') in form L-1 for manufacture
of 'Old Spice' after shave lotion and cologne for men as toilet preparations
was granted on 1.4.1969. Till the end of the year 1984 excise duty on 'Old
Spice' after shave lotion (hereinafter called as 'ASL') was paid on the basis
that it was a toilet preparation. On 14.1.1985 Colfax moved an application
before the Commissioner of Excise, Government of Goa for reclassification
of Old Spice ASL as a 'medicinal preparation' falling under Tariff Item
No.1(i)(b) of the Schedule to the Act for the purpose of levy of excise duty.
The Excise Commissioner vide his order dated 23.3.1985 classified the same
as 'medicinal preparation'. Subsequently, by the order dated 12.6.1985 Old
Spice ASL was classified as falling within the ambit of Item No.1(i)(b) of
the Schedule. Colfax thereafter made application for refund of excess
amount of the excise duty paid after 23.3.1985 which was allowed by the
Commissioner of Excise and orders for refund of the excess amount of the
excise duty were passed.
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 633 of 2003
PETITIONER:
Rajendra and Anr.
RESPONDENT:
State of Madhya Pradesh
BENCH:
DORAISWAMY RAJU & ARIJIT PASAYAT
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 778 of 1997
PETITIONER:
State of Punjab
RESPONDENT:
Bhag Singh
BENCH:
DORAISWAMY RAJU & ARIJIT PASAYAT
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
The trial Court held that the prosecution version was entirely
dependent upon the testimony of official witnesses and since no
independent witness was involved, the prosecution version was
vulnerable. It was noted that the search and seizure was made at a
through fare and it is unbelievable that no independent witness was
available. The trial Court therefore directed acquittal. The appellant-
State filed an appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court which
refused to grant leave and disposed of the application for leave in the
following manner:
"Heard. No merit.
Dismissed."
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 53 of 2003
PETITIONER:
Smt. Krishna Kanwar @ Thakuraeen
RESPONDENT:
State of Rajasthan
BENCH:
DORAISWAMY RAJU & ARIJIT PASAYAT.
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
ARIJIT PASAYAT,J.