TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether immunity from prosecution under Section 64 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 could be granted by the Central Government after commencement of trial and after rejection of an application for pardon under Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Analysis: The power to grant immunity under Section 64 is aimed at securing the evidence of a person concerned in the offence and serves the same practical purpose as tender of pardon under Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The statutory language does not confine that power to a stage before trial commences. Read in context, the expression "immunity from prosecution" covers the pendency of the proceeding until judgment, and the Government may act during trial if the statutory conditions are satisfied. The Court also held that the Government's power under Section 64 is independent of the Court's power under Section 307, and the rejection of pardon by the Sessions Judge did not bar grant of immunity by the Central Government. The grant was also found to be supported by recorded reasons and not shown to be extraneous or arbitrary.
Conclusion: The immunity granted under Section 64 was valid and could be exercised during the trial notwithstanding the earlier refusal of pardon under Section 307.
Ratio Decidendi: A statutory power to grant conditional immunity for obtaining evidence may be exercised during the pendency of the criminal trial unless the statute expressly restricts it to a pre-trial stage, and such power operates independently of the court's power to tender pardon under the general criminal procedure law.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
