VINOD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
LAWS(SC)-2002-8-60
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
August 08,2002
VINOD
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
SAJJANSING ALIAS RAJU JAGDISHSINH PAWAR VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2003-3-5] [REFERRED]RAHUL SINGHAL VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2005-11-138] [REFERRED TO]
TULSI RAM VS. STATE OF H P [LAWS(HPH)-2007-4-9] [REFERRED TO]
HALKI BAI VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2004-2-27] [REFERRED TO]
MD ISMAI GULTANIA VS. STATE [LAWS(CAL)-2004-1-12] [REFERRED TO]
ZAMIL AKHTAR VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2005-2-30] [REFERRED TO]
BHUPATJI SHAKARAJI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2003-4-27] [REFERRED]
RASH MOHAN SAHA VS. NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU EASTERN ZONAL UNIT [LAWS(CAL)-2003-11-59] [REFERRED TO]
R MAYILVAHANAM VS. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU SOUTH ZONE CHENNAI [LAWS(KAR)-2008-4-21] [REFERRED TO]
MD SARFRAJ VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2003-9-112] [REFERRED TO]
PURE LAL VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2004-8-108] [REFERRED TO]
HANUMAN VS. THE STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2003-7-163] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAMRAO HANUMANTRAO RAO VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2011-4-235] [REFERRED TO]
GHANSHYAM VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2005-3-148] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAYSINH CHANDUBHA JADEJA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(SC)-2006-11-184] [REFERRED TO]
SATYANJAY TRIPATHI VS. BANARSI DEVI [LAWS(MPH)-2011-2-65] [REFERRED TO]
JASWANT SINGH ALIAS JASSA VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2004-8-34] [REFERRED TO]
MANGI LAL VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2004-7-76] [REFERRED TO]
HARPAL SINGH VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2005-3-44] [REFERRED TO]
BHUPATJI SHAKARAJI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2003-4-71] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2007-2-123] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KUMAR VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2017-8-101] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)The original appellant Vinod being no more, his legal representatives are pursuing this appeal to vindicate his honour and also to obviate the obligation arising out of levy of substantial amount of fine upon the original appellant apart from sentence of imprisonment in respect of an offence arising under Section 21 read with Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Therefore, the application for substitution is allowed.
(2.)The charge against the original appellant is that on 2-10-1991 at about 2.40 p. m. near Shukla Lodge, Bajaria, Telipura he was found to be in possession of brown sugar weighing 120 mg valued at Rs 120 meant for sale without licence, permit or authorisation.
(3.)The evidence put forth in the course of trial before the learned sessions Judge is in the shape of Exhibit 39 complaint and Exhibit 38 panchnama supported by the evidence of PW 7 Head Constable Bapu Bhosle. Apart from this material there was no other material to show that the appellant was in possession of the said brown sugar. The trial court noticed that both in the complaint and in the panchnama it was mentioned that prior to search of his person an understanding was given to the original appellant that if he desires, his search will be taken in the presence of an Executive magistrate or a gazetted officer and the appellant replied in the negative. However, in the course of evidence PW 7 Bapu Bhosle did not state this fact and the two panch witnesses who were also signatories to the panchnama did not support the case of the prosecution. The trial court concluded that such information, therefore, was not given to the appellant and without such information the search of the accused could not be relied upon. However, learned Judge further held that the non-compliance with Section 50 of the act has not resulted in any prejudice to him. On that basis the learned Judge found the appellant guilty and punished him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and a fine of Rs 1,00,000 and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 18 months.
(2.)The charge against the original appellant is that on 2-10-1991 at about 2.40 p. m. near Shukla Lodge, Bajaria, Telipura he was found to be in possession of brown sugar weighing 120 mg valued at Rs 120 meant for sale without licence, permit or authorisation.
(3.)The evidence put forth in the course of trial before the learned sessions Judge is in the shape of Exhibit 39 complaint and Exhibit 38 panchnama supported by the evidence of PW 7 Head Constable Bapu Bhosle. Apart from this material there was no other material to show that the appellant was in possession of the said brown sugar. The trial court noticed that both in the complaint and in the panchnama it was mentioned that prior to search of his person an understanding was given to the original appellant that if he desires, his search will be taken in the presence of an Executive magistrate or a gazetted officer and the appellant replied in the negative. However, in the course of evidence PW 7 Bapu Bhosle did not state this fact and the two panch witnesses who were also signatories to the panchnama did not support the case of the prosecution. The trial court concluded that such information, therefore, was not given to the appellant and without such information the search of the accused could not be relied upon. However, learned Judge further held that the non-compliance with Section 50 of the act has not resulted in any prejudice to him. On that basis the learned Judge found the appellant guilty and punished him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and a fine of Rs 1,00,000 and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 18 months.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.