38.6c New Delhi, India, Monday, May 20, 2024

NDPS ACT - SPOT is not the place of interception, but the place of SEARCH and RECOVERY: MP High Court [Read Order]

By LawStreet News Network      22 February, 2022 11:46 AM      0 Comments
NDPS ACT MP High Court

The search and seizure procedures of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act,1985 ) matters have recently come to light as the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that “spot” would not constitute a place where any contemplated vehicle or person is intercepted but that place where such search is conducted and recovery of articles resultantly are made. 

Justice Sanjay Dwivedi while dismissing the bail application put forth by the applicants charged U/s 8/20,25, 27(a)/28 R/w Section 29 Section NDPS Act, delivered this judgement. 

Section 20 NDPS Act 1985, deals primarily with the “Punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plant and cannabis”, Section 27(a) NDPS Act 1985, contemplates “punishment for financing illicit traffic and harboring offenders”, Sections 25, 28 and 29 NDPS Act 1985, deal with “punishment for allowing premises etc., to be used for commission of an offence”,” Punishment for contravention of section 8A” and “Punishment for abetment and criminal conspiracy” respectively.

The prosecution narrative held that the applicants along with other co accused were on their way from Andhra Pradesh to Shahjapur in the car. Upon receiving a lead from some reliable source regarding the enormous quantity of contraband the car was intercepted by the police on a concocted enquiry. The car was then carried to the nearest police station where the necessary search and seizure was done. It was at this “spot” that an overwhelming quantity of 80.351 kg of Ganja was deduced. This was followed by the necessary paper work and the offences of the applicants and other co accused were framed as per the above mentioned sections of the NDPS Act of 1985. 

The applicants have agreed to being intercepted on the road whereas the search and seizure was done much later in the police station. However they have used this contention as a ground in their bail application stating that all procedures should have been done by the police where the interception was done. The applicants have tried to show this as a lacuna in the police’s procedures. The applicants furthered that the police did not destroy the seized stuff. 

The state on the contrary has denied the prevalence of such error and has stated due diligence from their end. The State has also reiterated the exorbitant quantity seized and the criminal backgrounds of few applicants. Thus, the State opined the denial of bail to the applicants. 

The Court while examining the charge sheet was convinced that the state committed no error in destroying the contraband and in seeking the requisite permission from the court before its perusal. The applicants’ reference to the Mohanlal case was also comprehended and it was held that,

“Spot does not mean a place where suspected vehicle or person is intercepted, but it means a place where search is conducted and recovery of articles is made”

The Court thus denied bail considering the limitations set forth U/s 37 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Case Title: Kamrudddin vs. Union of India with connected matters.


[Read Order]

Share this article:

User Avatar

Leave a feedback about this


Trending Judiciary
SC Issues Notice to ED on Hemant Soren's Plea Against Arrest in Land Scam

Supreme Court issues notice to ED on Hemant Soren's plea against arrest in a land scam case, sets hearing for May 17 after senior advocate Kapil Sibal's request for an earlier date.

14 May, 2024 11:24 AM
Trending Environment
3,800 metric tonnes of solid wastes going untreated everyday in Delhi SC records concern

The Supreme Court expressed concern as 3,800 metric tonnes of solid waste in Delhi go untreated daily. The issue must be addressed promptly beyond political lines.

14 May, 2024 11:30 AM
Trending Judiciary
Plea filed in SC for review of April 26 EVM VVPAT verdict

A plea has been filed in the Supreme Court to review its April 26 verdict on EVM VVPAT verification, challenging the decision that dismissed a demand for 100% vote cross-verification.

14 May, 2024 12:13 PM
Trending Judiciary
AI can’t detect consent Microsoft and Google tell Delhi High Court

Microsoft and Google tell Delhi HC that AI can't detect consent for NCII takedowns, challenging a 24-hour removal directive under IT Act's safe harbour protections.

14 May, 2024 01:33 PM


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email