TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Conviction upheld based on confessional statements; death sentence reduced; acquittal due to lack of evidence.</h1> <h3>BALWINDER SINGH (BINDA) Versus THE NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU And SATNAM SINGH Versus THE NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU</h3> BALWINDER SINGH (BINDA) Versus THE NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU And SATNAM SINGH Versus THE NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU - TMI Issues Involved:1. Factual Matrix of the Incident2. Investigation and Proceedings Before the Trial Court3. Proceedings Before the High Court4. Arguments Advanced by Counsel for the Parties5. Analysis and Discussion on Legal Points6. ConclusionSummary of Judgment:I. Factual Matrix:- Incident in Question: On December 11, 2005, the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) received information about individuals traveling from Amritsar to Chandigarh in a white Indica car to supply contraband. On December 12, 2005, the NCB team intercepted the car and apprehended Satnam Singh, while two others fled. Four packets of heroin were recovered from the car.II. Investigation and Proceedings Before the Trial Court:- Investigation: Satnam Singh's statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act implicated Balwinder Singh and another person. Balwinder Singh was later arrested based on a newspaper report.- Trial Court Proceedings: The NCB examined five witnesses. Both accused were found guilty under Section 21 read with Section 8 of the NDPS Act. Balwinder Singh was sentenced to death under Section 31A(1a) of the NDPS Act, while Satnam Singh received 12 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine.III. Proceedings Before the High Court:- High Court Analysis: The High Court upheld the conviction of both accused based on their confessional statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, which were deemed admissible at the time. However, the death sentence for Balwinder Singh was reduced to 14 years of rigorous imprisonment.IV. Arguments Advanced by Counsel for the Parties:- For Balwinder Singh: Counsel argued that the confessional statements under Section 67 are no longer admissible following the Supreme Court's decision in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu.- For Satnam Singh: Counsel argued that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case and that the independent witnesses were unreliable.- For the Respondent (NCB): Counsel asserted that ample evidence was presented to convict both accused and that the burden of proof had shifted to the accused, which they failed to discharge.V. Analysis and Discussion:- Significance of Tofan Singh's Decision: The Supreme Court's decision in Tofan Singh declared that officers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act are 'police officers' within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, making confessional statements to them inadmissible.- Effect on Balwinder Singh's Case: Without the confessional statements, the prosecution lacked independent incriminating evidence against Balwinder Singh, leading to his acquittal.- Satnam Singh's Case: Unlike Balwinder Singh, Satnam Singh's conviction was supported by other evidence, including testimonies of key witnesses and the recovery of heroin from his car.VI. Conclusion:- Balwinder Singh: Acquitted due to lack of admissible evidence.- Satnam Singh: Conviction and sentence upheld, as the prosecution successfully proved the foundational facts and the burden of proof shifted to the accused, which he failed to discharge. Criminal Appeal No. 1933 of 2014 (Satnam Singh) is dismissed, and Criminal Appeal No. 1136 of 2014 (Balwinder Singh) is allowed.
TaxTMI 