NDPS ACT

I am appearing for the accused in a narcotic case and it is posted for final hearing.
Facts of the case is as follows :
Please guide me .
Offence u/s 20 (b) NDPS ACT.
ALLEGATION :-
Accused was found carrying 36 gms of ganja, in a plastic carry bag and he was arrested in a public place, on a casual search by the excice officials. ( no prior information).
Prosecution has examined 5 witnesses, and marked 6 documents.
Pw1 and pw4 - arresting officers
Pw2 and pw3- independent witnesses, ( not supported prosecution story ) but they were cross-examined by the prosecutor, without declaring hostile. is it permissible ?
Pw5 – investigation officer
Documents :-
P1 – seizure mahassr
P2 –arrest memo
P3-consent letter u/s 50 ndps by accused , to be searched by the arresting officers themselves( stating that there is no need of magistrate or gazette officers)
P4-occurance rport
P5-property list
P6-chemical analysis report
P7-inspection memo
M.O WAS NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE COURT, NOR MARKED.
BUT, THE PROPERTY LIST SHOWS THAT IT WAS SENT TO THE COURT, AND THE COURT HAS RECEIVED IT ON THE SAME DAY…..WHETHER ACCUSED IS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT IN THIS REGARD ?
Grounds, I believe worth noting are :-
NO M.O WAS MARKED
INDEPENDENT WITNESSES ARE NOT OF THE LOCALITY
INDEPENDENT WITNESSES, NOT SUPPORTED THE PROSECUTION STORY
NO ENDORCEMENT IN THE ARREST MEMO , THAT ARREST OF THE ACCUSED WAS INFORMED TO HIS RELATIVES, BUT IT IS THERE IN THE P7 INSPECTION MEMO
PW 1 AND 4 SAYS THAT THERE IS NO COLUMN IN P2 FOR THAT. THAT’S WHY A SPECIAL P7 WAS PREPARED. BUT, AS PER DK BASU V/S UNION OF INDIA, IS IT NOT MANDATORY, TO INCLUDE IT , IN THE ARREST MEMO , ITSELF ?
NO REPORT U/S 57 IS MARKED. BUT SIMPLY STATED IN THE MAHASSAR THAT AFTER COMPLYING SEC 57, PROPERTY AND MAHASSAR WERE SENT TO COURT. IS IT SUFFICIENT ?
NO FOREWARDING NOTE WAS MARKED.BUT, ANALYST REPORT IS MARKED . IS IT SUFFICIENT ?
I am told that in NDPS CASES, there a lot of citations that before conducting search of an accused. The arresting officers has to offer their personal search to the accused, to avoid implanting of contraband articles.please give me any one of such citations .
Accused has signed in p3 consent letter. But, but p2 arrest memo bears accused “s thumb impression , not signature ! its legal consequence ?
Is sec 50 mandatory in cases or consent letter from accused , while in custody is sufficient ?
Ref : 2002(2)KLT 211 (SC)
PLEASE GIVE MAXIMUM CITATIONS FOR THE ABOVE GROUNDS .
RESPECTFULLY,
SD/-
SALILKUMAR.P
ADVOCATE
THALASSERY

Second time Cheque returned with the remark 'A/c. Closed'

Business with a leading multinational necessitated giving blank cheques in advance for supplies, in 2003 the multinational company involved a multinational bank for its personal business advantage and all future transactions were routed through this multinational bank. The bank too insisted on 10 blank cheques of nationalised bank as security.

In 2005 business was closed and so was the bank account with the nationalised bank. The multinational company returned all the blank cheques in its custody but the bank failed to do so and said a particular amount was disputed. The discrepancies in account was brought to the notice of the multinational bank, negotiations failed and they deposited by filling the date and amount on one of the blank cheques in its custody in 2005. The cheque was returned with the remark 'Account Closed' and the bank intitated proceedings u/s 138.

The complainant bank failed to appear for cross examination and the cross was closed in 2009 and the bank has applied for revision in higher court.

Now the complainant bank has again deposited the second blank cheque in its custody for double the amount(most probably with interest)for recovery of the same amount for which trial is in progress and given a fresh notice u/s 138.

Is their any remedy for the accused. Can the accused lodge police complaint/FIR for harassment against the complaiant bank (if yes under which section) and or apply to court where the case is already in progress to restrain complainant from proceeding further (if us under which section).

ATS BUNGLE

What are your views over this matter?


Once again the Maharashtra police has demonstrated its talent for putting its collective foot in its mouth. Last Saturday's announcement by the Anti-Terrorism Squad that it had not only caught two suspected terrorists but that these two had links to Pakistan and were about to bomb ONGC oil tanks,the Thakkar mall in Borivli and other vital installations has angered the Centre. The Union ministry of home affairs has ordered an inquiry into the "leak" of information to the media and demanded action against the officer involved. The Centre is also annoyed that it was kept out of the loop by the Maharashtra government, while "sensitive" information was being released to the media. This incident highlights yet again the inefficiency and factionalism which rules the Maharashtra police and the inability of home minister RR Patil to fix its deep and serious problems. The ATS has through its short life been known more for its grand pronouncements rather than any major breakthroughs and here also has shown that it is incapable of balancing its inherent desire for publicity with the interests of the nation.



In some senses, the Pune blasts at German Bakery earlier this year, the confusion over the attackers, and the lack of intelligence inputs from the central agencies to support the contentions made by the Maharashtra police may have triggered this desire to register a "victory" in the public eye. Yet, if the Mumbai terror attacks made anything clear it is that no local police force is equipped to tackle a major terrorist attack without help from the Centre and from intelligence agencies. The ATS itself suffered greatly during the 2008 attacks when it lost its leader Hemant Karkare.Charge was then handed back to current chief KP Raghuvanshi, who, interestingly, held the post before it was given to Karkare.



Many officers within the force are both media and politician-savvy and they know how to sound right in both quarters. This is no mean skill but has been developed it seems at the expense of real policing. It also seems incredible that the Maharashtra police is unable to fathom that terrorism is a major threat that this country faces and cannot be used as a ploy by ambitious or desperate police officers to try and score points over one another. The overhaul of the Maharashtra police is already long overdue. The state home ministry must now see whether its answer to the Centre can also trigger a cleanup.

Sec 160(2) of Railways act

R/Members
My client wants to confess his guilt in a case u/s 160(2) of Railways act but problem is this in this section sentence can extend upto 5 years,(minimum is not provided)how i can compound/get rid off from this case,is there anything in newly enacted plea barganing.Kindly help

cheque bouncing

SIR MY

on compounding of offence

if the offence is compounded with the complainant and the court discharged the accused is there any adverse effect in future or in govt service

pendency of civil case a bar to move a criminal writ petitio

MAINTAINANCE

Bar u/s 125(3) 2005(2)ald(crl)370(sc) held not applicable-original appication filed with in stipulated period one year subsequent applicationfor arears for subsequent period-do not amountbar of limitation u/s 125(3) crpc.
Act u/s 125 (3) is specific. payment and liabulity are different issues,
WHEN ACT IS SPECIFIC AND NOT AMENDED /ALTERED CAN ACT PREVAILS OR JUDGEMENT PREVAILS.
PLEASE FURNISH ANY CITATIONS THAT ACT PREVAILS

effect of non production of case property in court

R//members
I am in need of a citation in which benefit of non production of case property was given to accused.Thanx n Regards

Criminal Law

As per the amendment in Section 202 of CR.P.C. Following insertion is made" and shall when accused is residing at a place beyond the are in which magistrate exercises his jurisdiction". Now as per this amendment Whether it is incumbent upon magistrate to compulsorily postpone the issue process or if a material before him is like such in a case when offence committed can be seen prima facie and accused is beyond the jurisdiction. Whether Magistrate can pass an order of issue process when he has satisfied primarily when accused is beyond the jurisdiction instead of sending it for investigation or the word shall denotes that he must send it for investigation. What is scope of words in the section "Sufficient Grounds"? Are there any case laws after the amendment of 2005 which says magistrate can pass an order of issue process directly instead of postponement of issue process, when magistrate is satisfied prima facie. Please send me the Object of said amendment of 2005 also.