Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Court upholds Narcotic Drugs Act validity but prosecution fails burden of proof. Confessions ruled inadmissible.</h1> <h3>NOOR AGA Versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.</h3> NOOR AGA Versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. - 2009 AIR 852, 2008 (10) SCR 379, 2008 (16) SCC 417, 2008 (7) JT 409, 2008 (9) SCALE 681 Issues Involved:1. Constitutional validity of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.2. Burden of proof on the prosecution vis-`a-vis the accused.3. Non-production of physical evidence.4. Non-examination of independent witnesses.5. Discrepancies in the statements of official witnesses.6. Admissibility of purported confessions.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Constitutional Validity of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985:The appellant challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 35 and 54 of the Act, arguing that they impose a reverse burden on the accused, contrary to Article 14(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. The court held that while presumption of innocence is a human right, it is not absolute and can be subject to statutory exceptions. The Act's stringent provisions are justified by the need to combat narcotic drug trafficking, aligning with international conventions. Therefore, the provisions of Sections 35 and 54 are not ultra vires the Constitution of India.2. Burden of Proof on the Prosecution vis-`a-vis the Accused:The court emphasized that the prosecution must establish foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt before the burden shifts to the accused. The heightened standard of proof is necessary due to the severe penalties under the Act. The court held that the prosecution failed to discharge its initial burden, thus failing to establish the foundational facts required to invoke the reverse burden under Sections 35 and 54.3. Non-production of Physical Evidence:The prosecution failed to produce essential physical evidence, including the cardboard carton, the bulk quantity of heroin, and the three samples taken from the bulk. The court noted that the cardboard carton was missing, and no convincing explanation was provided. The bulk quantity of heroin was allegedly destroyed without proper authorization, and the samples were not produced in court. The court held that non-production of physical evidence significantly undermines the prosecution's case and warrants drawing an adverse inference against the prosecution.4. Non-examination of Independent Witnesses:The prosecution did not examine the independent witnesses, Mahinder Singh and Yusuf, who were allegedly present during the search and seizure. The court held that the non-examination of these material witnesses, without any explanation, adversely affects the credibility of the prosecution's case. The court emphasized that the quality of evidence matters, and the failure to examine independent witnesses in a case with numerous discrepancies prejudices the appellant.5. Discrepancies in the Statements of Official Witnesses:The court noted several discrepancies in the statements of official witnesses regarding the search and seizure process. For instance, there were contradictions in the time of recovery and the handling of the samples. The court held that these discrepancies, when considered cumulatively, erode the credibility of the prosecution's case. The court highlighted the importance of strict compliance with procedural safeguards, especially in cases involving severe penalties.6. Admissibility of Purported Confessions:The appellant retracted his confessions, claiming they were made under duress and threat. The court held that the burden of proving that the confessions were made voluntarily lies with the prosecution. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the voluntariness of the confessions. The court also noted that the use of technical terms in the confessions, which the appellant, an Afghan national, was unlikely to know, raised doubts about their authenticity. The court concluded that the purported confessions could not be relied upon as the sole basis for conviction.Conclusion:1. The provisions of Sections 35 and 54 are not ultra vires the Constitution of India.2. Procedural requirements laid down therein are required to be strictly complied with.3. There are numerous discrepancies in the treatment and disposal of physical evidence, contradictions in the statements of official witnesses, and non-examination of independent witnesses, leading to a lack of credible evidence.4. The fact of recovery has not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt, which is required to establish before applying the doctrine of reverse burden.5. The investigation was not fair, and the impugned judgment cannot be sustained.The appeal is allowed, and the impugned judgment is set aside. The court also emphasized the necessity of disposing of such cases quickly to prevent undue delay in the justice process.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found