#SupremeCourt quashes case against Elvish Yadav alleging that he used snake venom for his video and organized rave parties where drugs were consumed.
Bench: Justice MM Sundresh and Justice N Kotiswar.
Bench: Justice MM Sundresh and Justice N Kotiswar.
Order: we are inclined only to go into two legal issues.
First issue is on the scope and applicability of section 2(23) of the NDPS Act. The second issue is with respect to complaint under Section 55 of the Wildlife Protection Act.
First issue is on the scope and applicability of section 2(23) of the NDPS Act. The second issue is with respect to complaint under Section 55 of the Wildlife Protection Act.
Order: learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the cognizance of the offence under NDPS Act is not maintainable as the psychotropic substance allegedly recovered from the co accused does not find place in the Schedule of the Act.
Order: The submission is made without prejudice to the fact that recovery was not made from the appellant and the charge sheet against him reads to the effect that he used to place orders through his friend.
Order: On the second issue the parent submitted that Section 55 can only be pressed into service through a private complaint by an authorised officer. It is submitted that offences under the IPC are not made out as they are subject matter of an earlier complaint which was closed.
Order: admittedly what is recovered from the co-accused does not come within the purview of the schedule under the NDPS Act.
Order: on the second issue also we find that under Section 55 of the Wildlife Protection Act what is required is a private complaint by a competent authority. The said issue has been considered by this court time and again.
Order: taking note of those decisions it is clear that the FIR registered cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. We are not going to go much into the other issues raised. The proceedings stand to have been quashed.
Order: however we do not wish to leave this issue at this stage particularly when we have not gone into the allegations and facts. We give liberty to the competent authority to press into service Section 55 of the Wildlife Protection Act.
J Sundresh: we are not going to give a clean chit to this person. If he has committed something it has to be done.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
