Supreme Court Raps Superior Court for “exceeding jurisdiction”

Fruiting the courts on the jurisdiction, the Supreme Court has reserved an order of the Superior Court of Allahabad that ordered the director of the Narcotics Control Office to pay RS 5 Lakh as compensation to a man for alleged unfair chain. A Bank of Judges Sanjay Karol and Manmohan said that the compensation grant did not have the authority of the law.

The Superior Court was listening to an appeal presented by the Narcotics Control Office (NCB) that defies an order of the Lucknow Bank of the Superior Court of Allahabad.

In this case, in a joint operation, the NCB seized 1,280 grams of brown dust (supposedly heroin) of the possession of a Singh Verma man and One Aman Singh. Consequently, there was a criminal case against Verma by virtue of sections 8 (c), 21 and 29 of the law of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, 1985 and was sent to judicial custody.

While waiting for the laboratory results, the defendant filed a statement before the special judge, NDPS, the Baranki district, looking for bail, which was rejected. The defendant approached the Superior Court against the Order.

On January 30, 2023, the laboratory issued its report indicating that the sample proved negative for heroin and other narcotic substances. Later, the exhibition was sent to the Central Laboratory of Forensic Sciences (CFSL), Chandigarh, for a more detailed exam.

On April 5, 2023, the report received from CFSL, Chandigarh, found that the second set of samples also gave negative for any narcotic substance.

As a result, the NCB filed a closing report before the special judge, NDPS, in accordance with which the defendant was released from the district prison, Barabanki.

Despite the closing report and the release of the defendant, the Superior Court proceeded to judge the request for pending bail and observed that the defendant was a young person who had been unfairly confined for four months despite the initial laboratory finding and, therefore, ordered the director, NCB to pay compensation.

When commenting on the HC order, the Superior Court said: “Again and again, the act of the courts exceeding the limits of the jurisdiction, it has clearly been frowned upon. The instantaneous case is another example of this type. It is indisputable that the request for bail submitted to the Superior Court had become unsuccessful since the District Court had already published the defendant here.

“The direct course of action that should have been adopted, therefore, was that the bail request would have dismissed as such. There was no occasion for the court to approve an order that deepens the aspects of the inadmissibility of re -testing and/or unfair confinement,” said the bank.

The Superior Court said that it was not only the same outside the limits, as discussed above, but is wrong in an additional count that, since the application was unsuccessful, the exercise of the jurisdiction was completely unjustified and contrary to the law.

The SC said that the undue restriction of freedom, that is, without the support of the procedures established by the law is, without a doubt, a face of the rights of a person, but the ways of seeking resources of law in relation to it are limited to the resources according to the law.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a union feed).