Scribd
Upload
144 views

Itendra Panchal Vs

The petitioner was tried and convicted in the US for conspiracy to possess and distribute controlled substances and sentenced to 54 months in prison. Upon deportation to India, he was apprehended by Indian authorities and charged under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The petitioner argued this violated the double jeopardy prohibition. However, the court dismissed this, finding the offenses were different - the US crime did not involve the specific provisions of the NDPS Act. While the same facts gave rise to offenses in both countries, the convictions were under different laws, so double jeopardy did not apply.

Uploaded by

Amisha Prakash
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
144 views

Itendra Panchal Vs

The petitioner was tried and convicted in the US for conspiracy to possess and distribute controlled substances and sentenced to 54 months in prison. Upon deportation to India, he was apprehended by Indian authorities and charged under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The petitioner argued this violated the double jeopardy prohibition. However, the court dismissed this, finding the offenses were different - the US crime did not involve the specific provisions of the NDPS Act. While the same facts gave rise to offenses in both countries, the convictions were under different laws, so double jeopardy did not apply.

Uploaded by

Amisha Prakash
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

itendra Panchal vs . The Intelligence Offi cer , Narcoti c Control Bureau and Ors . ( 19 .

09 . 2007 - BOMHC )

7. Jitendra Panchal vs . The Intelligence Officer , Narcotic Control Bureau and Ors . ( 19 . 09 . 2007 -
BOMHC )

MANU/MH/0727/2007

Decision Date: 19.09.2007

Subject: Criminal

Subject: Narcotics

Citing Ref:

Discussed

 12

Act: Arms Act 1959 - Section 25 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC) - Section 188 Code of Criminal
Procedure 1973 (CrPC) - Section 220 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC) - Section 221 Code of
Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC) - Section 221(1) Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC) - Section 221(2)
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC) - Section 236 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC) - Section
237 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC) - Section 300 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC) -
Section 300(1) Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC) - Section 403 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973
(CrPC) - Section 403(1) Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC) - Section 403(2) Constitution Of India -
Article 20 Constitution Of India - Article 20(2) Constitution Of India - Article 20(3) Customs Act 1962 -
Section 111 Customs Act 1962 - Section 135 Customs Act 1962 - Section 136 General Clauses Act 1897 -
Section 26 Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) - Section 120-B Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) - Section 332
Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) - Section 392 Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) - Section 399 Indian Penal Code
1860 (IPC) - Section 402 Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) - Section 409 Insurance Act 1938 - Section 105
Insurance Act 1938 - Section 107 Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 - Section 12
Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 - Section 20(b)(ii)(C) Narcotic Drugs And
Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 - Section 23 Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 -
Section 24 Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 - Section 27-A Narcotic Drugs And
Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 - Section 27A Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 -
Section 28 Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 - Section 29 Narcotic Drugs And
Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 - Section 8(c) Prevention Of Corruption Act 1988 - Section 5(1)(c)
Prevention Of Corruption Act 1988 - Section 5(2) Terrorist And Disruptive Activities (prevention) Act
1987 [repealed] - Section 3 Terrorist And Disruptive Activities (prevention) Act 1987 [repealed] - Section
5
Case Note: Criminal - Double jeopardy - Article 20 of the Constitution of India - Section 300(1) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 8(c), 12, 20(b)(ii)(C), 23, 24, 27A, 28, 29 of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Petitioner was tried before the U.S.A. District Courts - He
pleaded guilty to the charge of conspiracy to possess with intention to distribute and to distribute
controlled substances and was ordered to be imprisoned for a total term of 54 months - On deportion to
India, Petitioner apprehended by the officers of the NCB and continued to be in custody - Petitioner filed
an application seeking bail and raised the point of double jeopardy - Application for bail dismissed -
Hence this application to set aside the order and quash the entire prosecution - Whether the ingredients
of the offence for which the Petitioner was tried and punished in U.S.A. are the same as those of the
offences for which the Petitioner is sought to be prosecuted in India - Held, the offence for which he was
charged in U.S.A. neither related to any of the ingredients of the offences punishable under the
provisions of the NDPS Act under which the Petitioner is sought to be prosecuted in India, nor the same
could be said to be an offence to which any of the provisions of law comprised under the NDPS Act
would apply, nor the prosecution and punishment in U.S.A. can be said to be by the Court of competent
jurisdiction in relation to the offences under the said sections of the NDPS Act nor even similar thereto -
Merely because same set of facts gives rise to offences in India under the NDPS Act, the conviction
under a totally different provisions of law arising out of the same set of facts would not bar the Court in
Mumbai to deal with the matter against the Petitioner nor the principle of double jeopardy is in any
manner attracted - Petition dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: "Merely because same set of facts gives rise to offences in India under the NDPS Act,
the conviction under a totally different provisions of law arising out of the same set of facts would not
bar the Court in Mumbai to deal with the matter against the Petitioner nor the principle of double
jeopardy is in any manner attracted.."

Disposition: In Favour of State

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy