UNION OF INDIA vs MD.KALIM @ MOHD.KALIM ANSARI — Crl.A. No. 262/2013

Case under Section II-A. Status: Sclsc Disposed.

Sclsc Disposed

CNR: SCIN010143392011

Filing Date

02-May-2011

Registration No

Crl.A. No. 262/2013

Diary Number

14339/2011

Order Date

30-Aug-2018

Document Type

ROP - of Main Case

Disposal Type

Dismissed

Last updated 05-Jul-2026

Acts & Sections

Section II-A

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.UNION OF INDIA

    Adv. B. KRISHNA PRASAD

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.MD.KALIM @ MOHD.KALIM ANSARI

    Adv. S. RAVI SHANKAR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 30-Aug-2018

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 30-Aug-2018

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran

  4. 27-Mar-2015

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  5. 27-Mar-2015

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  6. 06-Feb-2015

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  7. 06-Feb-2015

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  8. 04-Feb-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  9. 03-Dec-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  10. 27-Nov-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  11. 05-Nov-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  12. 03-Sep-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  13. 16-Jul-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  14. 17-Oct-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  15. 07-Jul-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  16. 02-May-2011

    Case filed

    Registration No. Crl.A. No. 262/2013

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: Union of India v. Md. Kalim @ Mohd. Kalim Ansari (Crl.A. No. 262/2013) The Supreme Court dismissed the Union of India's appeal on August 30, 2018. The trial court had convicted Md. Kalim under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 for transporting 575 kg of Ganja, but the High Court of Patna reversed the conviction due to insufficient substantive evidence proving he was the truck driver—his own statement and presence near the vehicle lacked corroboration. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's acquittal, finding it a plausible view where two reasonable interpretations existed and saw no serious error warranting interference. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case