Judgments - NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985 (NDPS)
Mohd Zahid VERSUS State through NCB
KELVIN GEORGE KATINDASA VERSUS NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU
ABUL KALAM @ SULTAN VERSUS STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Bherulal Versus Central Government
Law laid down - Applicability of bar as provided under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 in case of application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Admittedly, the provisions of the Act have harsher provisions for sentencing and even harsher when it comes to bail, as has been provided under Section 37 of the Act. In the case of Murleedharan v. State of Kerala, while dealing with a similar provision, Section 41-A of Full Judgment
Union of India through Narcotics Control Bureau, Lucknow Versus Md. Nawaz Khan
Basudeo Mahto Versus State of Chhattisgarh
MIKE @ IMMANUEL(PRESENTLY IN JAIL) VERSUS STATE OF NCT DELHI (THR. STANDING COUNSEL)
MAHMOOD KURDEYA VERSUS NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU
Gopal Krishna Gautam alias Pandit Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
Law laid down:- 1. Sections 35, 54 and 66 under NDPS Act raise presumptions (which are rebuttable) over accused to prove his innocence, although the standard of proof required for the accused to prove his innocence is Preponderance of Probability which accused shall have to establish. NDPS Act carries reverse burden of proof under Sections 35 and 54. Noor Aga Vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 16 SCC 417 relied. 2. An initial burden exists upon the prosecution and when it stands satisfied, Full Judgment