Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

The Rajasthan High Court held that possession of charas below 100 grams, a small quantity punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act with up to six months' imprisonment, is not triable by the Special Court, because Section 36A(1)(a) gives that Court only offences punishable with more than three years (paras 8-9). Quantities recovered separately from two accused on one motorcycle could not be added up (para 9). The case was sent to a Judicial Magistrate First Class (para 11).

The Supreme Court upheld a ten-year sentence for 500 grams of charas found in a bag the appellant carried on his shoulder (paras 2, 5, 24). Section 50 applies only to a search of the person, not to a bag, briefcase or container (paras 13-15). Independent corroboration is normally expected but is not an inviolable rule (para 16), and parity in sentencing did not help because the other man was tried separately on a separate FIR (para 23).

The Supreme Court restored the acquittal of a husband and his relatives in a dowry death case. There is no legal bar on the complainant investigating; Bhagwan Singh and Megha Singh "have to be confined to the facts of the said cases" (para 5). The High Court reversed the acquittal without analysing the trial court's conclusions, and its reasoning on the defence was contrary to the record (paras 44-45).

The Supreme Court set aside an Allahabad High Court order that suspended the sentence of a man convicted under Sections 27A and 29 of the NDPS Act and granted him bail without considering Section 37 (paras 3, 10, 16). Section 37's twin conditions are cumulative, and 'reasonable grounds' means more than prima facie grounds (para 13). Custody, delay in hearing the appeal and nothing being found on him did not satisfy Section 37 (para 15). The bail plea was remitted to the High Court (para 16).

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of a man accused of smuggling antique idols abroad against the Rajasthan High Court's refusal of bail (paras 1, 20). It explained that "the concept of bail emerges from the conflict between the police power to restrict liberty of a man who is alleged to have committed a crime, and presumption of innocence in favour of the alleged criminal" (para 16), that Section 439 requires the applicant to be in custody, and that bail courts consider only a prima facie case (paras 10, 19).

The Supreme Court upheld a conviction for possessing 7 kg of opium, holding that the inspector who made the recovery "was rightly made the Investigating Officer in the case" and that bias depends on the facts (para 14). A delay of about 40 days in sending samples caused no prejudice as the seals stayed intact (para 12), and the Section 55 objection failed for want of prejudice (para 13).

The Supreme Court set aside the Allahabad High Court's acquittal of a man found with 309 kg of poppy straw and restored his conviction (para 17). Opium and poppy straw are distinct under the NDPS Act, so linking the seizure to his father's opium licence had no foundation, and his Section 67 statement had never been retracted (paras 6-7, 10, 16). Through M. Prabhulal, the Court noted that a Gazetted Officer acting under Section 41 need not comply with Section 42 (para 13).

The Supreme Court set aside a cheque-dishonour conviction, holding that an accused "need not examine himself" to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and may rely on the material on record, on a preponderance of probabilities (paras 23, 25). It also said that the existence of a legally recoverable debt is not presumed under Section 139 (para 21). The complainant's unwitnessed, undocumented Rs. 1.5 lakh cash loan was improbable (para 29).

The Supreme Court upheld the Bombay High Court's acquittal of a man convicted under the NDPS Act, because the officer who received the secret information never reduced it to writing as Section 42 requires (paras 5, 19, 25). Although a hotel is a public place under Section 43, the Court said a room occupied by a guest may not be, and that the guest "is entitled to his right of privacy" (para 14).

The Supreme Court upheld a man's conviction for murdering his brother on his own voluntary extra-judicial confession and the recovery of the body, but acquitted three co-accused whose conviction rested on a co-accused's retracted judicial confession (paras 70-71, 164). It held that "no judgment of conviction shall be passed on an uncorroborated retracted confession" (para 107), and commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment as the case was not the rarest of rare (paras 157, 162, 164).

The Supreme Court set aside a conviction and death sentence for the rape and murder of a minor girl that rested on a retracted judicial confession (paras 2, 4, 23). Section 164 CrPC must be complied with "in letter and spirit", not mechanically: a confession recorded in fifteen minutes, on oath, without time for reflection or legal aid, after sixteen days in police custody, could not be relied on, and the alleged corroboration formed no chain (paras 10, 16, 19, 21).

A three-Judge Bench held that a doctor can be prosecuted under Section 304A IPC only for negligence that is gross or of a very high degree; the Bolam test governs medical negligence in India, and res ipsa loquitur has at most a limited role in a criminal trial (para 45). It laid down guidelines requiring a credible medical opinion before a private complaint or investigation proceeds against a doctor, and quashed the prosecution over an empty oxygen cylinder (paras 49-51).