CHHOTU LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
LAWS(RAJ)-2000-9-82
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on September 20,2000

CHHOTU LAL Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

KWNAR SHARMA, J. - (1.) THEIR Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh1. propounded that "A conviction resulting from an unfair trial is contrary to our concept of justice. The use of evidence collected in breach of the safeguards provided by Section 50 at the trial would render the trial unfair". The only argument advanced in the instant appeal by the learned Amicus Curiae is that provisions contained in Section 50 of the NDPS Act. 1985 have been flouted by the Investigating Agency and the impugned judgment of the learned Trial Court deserved to be set -aside.
(2.) THE question that arises for consideration is whether the Investigating Agency followed the procedure as envisaged by Section 50 of the NDPS Act scrupulously? Learned Trial Court answered this question in affirmative and convicted the accused appellant under Section 8/21 of the NDPS Act to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of rupees one Lakh, in default to further undergo one year simple imprisonment. On October 21, 1993 Durga Narain Purohit. SHO Bhimganj Mandi received secret information about illegal selling of smack by the appellant. SHO alongwith the police party reached at the spot and found the appellant at the specified place. Appellant was given option to be searched before the Magistrate or the Gazetted Officer but he volunteered to be searched by the SHO. On being so searched smack weighing two gms. was recovered from the possession of the accused. Necessary memos were drawn and after completion of the investigation charge -sheet was filed. Appellant denied the charge under Section 8/21 of the NDPS Act, and claimed trial. Prosecution examined as many as six witnesses. Thereafter statement of the appellant under Section 313, Cr. P.C. was recorded. After hearing the arguments learned Trial Court convicted the appellant as indicated hereinabove.
(3.) LEARNED Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and canvassed that the procedure enumerated in Section 50 was followed by the Investigation Officer in letter and spirit.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.