https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457595 At the charge-framing stage, Section 67 statements could not sustain additional charges under Sections 27A and 29A of the NDPS Act where no narcotic drug or psychotropic substance was recovered and the reliance on those statements was contrary to Tofan Singh. The Supreme Court therefore set aside the direction to frame charges for those offences, while leaving the existing charges under Sections 9A and 25 undisturbed. The ruling confirms that charge framing must rest on legally admissible material and cannot be expanded for more serious offences on the basis of statements whose evidentiary use is barred by binding precedent. en-us Mon, 25 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Sep 2024 20:31:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457595 At the charge-framing stage, Section 67 statements could not sustain additional charges under Sections 27A and 29A of the NDPS Act where no narcotic drug or psychotropic substance was recovered and the reliance on those statements was contrary to Tofan Singh. The Supreme Court therefore set aside the direction to frame charges for those offences, while leaving the existing charges under Sections 9A and 25 undisturbed. The ruling confirms that charge framing must rest on legally admissible material and cannot be expanded for more serious offences on the basis of statements whose evidentiary use is barred by binding precedent. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 25 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457595