NEELAM KUMAR SOOD Vs. STATE DELHI ADMINISTRATION
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
NEELAM KUMAR SOOD
STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION)
Click here to view full judgement.
M.l.Jain, J. -
(1.)The prosecution case is that on 15th April, 1978 at about 9.15 p.m. the petitioner was intercepted near Nulook Hotel. Paharganj, Delhi, by a police party and 400 gms. of morphine were recovered from him. The CFSL confirmed that it was morphine. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate by his judgment dated 14th November, 1980 convicted the petitioner under section 14 of the Dangerous Durgs Act and refused to give him the benefit of probation and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year.
(2.)The learned Additional Sessions Judge refused to intervene and dismissed the appeal. Hence, this revision petition.
(3.)I have heard the learned counsel Shri Mehta, and Shri Khalidi for the State. Both the courts below found that morphine was recovered from the possession of the accused. Hs had attested the memo of recovery. He also took up the stand that the morphine was planted on him. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no question was put to the accused under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code whether the memo of recovery was attested by him. Mere omission to question the accused regarding his signature on the recovery memo cannot be a reason to dislodge the finding of recovery of the article from the accused. Moreover, when the whole recovery memo was put to him, he could have said that the signatures on it are not his. Therefore, it is very difficult to say that the morphine was not recovered from the possession of the petitioner.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.