Amanpreet Singh @ Mani v. State Of Punjab




    
  
  

     

   !"#$%& ' ( $ )$ % (*+ #    
, ,-   #%& ( $ )$ % (*+ #        

  
 


!

($ $.* %& !.   $ # $/

 0 $!"1"$2 !.   $ # $/
, ,- 0 $3$"$%& %# !. 4$ (*+




!

 " #  $    $$

#   + ." #  $  "6767 
 

 
$&$ $  %  
  -8
8

   $   $&    (  $ # %+!( % %$!

"&$ $%&$$  9$   $ # $ 

   $ .$  

14# ## :;

&

$ " +&$ "

+  $:;

  # $;$$.

&7 + $ $+"  $ .$ *"$&

& $  """#$$+$  ""$ < 9$ 

 

     

$ $+"   "#    # $ < .$ "   . $"

" +&.

.   $$ (%!7   ++" $ # $;$ $$  

 
 $&;$$" 
 ,  $

     #$ &$  "    

          
 #$   ; +="

5 +"  

 $   +   $ ;

   + $+  # $+    #$  ;  & ###$+ $ $  $ & $. $ $9$  +"  $" $   :

    $$  

 $%  ;

 #& ## & #$ $"+     ##  $  +"  # $;$##$  &;

14 # ## :

;

     +   ;$  $.

&      $:  3  +"      # $;$##$ #$ $ $" $. 9$%  ;.$  ++  #  # $$ .

.   $$ (%! 

$ $$  $&;$$" 
 ,  

  #$  ;   
 +=" > 7 . $ $   $ #$#$ $ ."$  $ $

 The recovery allegedly effected from the petitioners is just marginally higher than the minimum prescribed under the commercial quantity under the NDPS Act. The petitioners are not shown to be

 

     involved in any other case under the NDPS Act. The trial would take considerable time to conclude as only one prosecution witness stands examined.

6.

T # 

;5 # $+"  +      $  $8 &$ $ 3 ;.$" $  & +$. $+ .

  + $ +=#$   #   "$       # $"    +

&$  " %;  + +$  :

   + &$  " %&'()*" # 


!

$

    $#:&8$   ?  $$# $+