Thandi Ram Vs. State of Haryana
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 1555/1995
Petitioner: Thandi Ram
Respondent: State of Haryana
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 1555/1995
Judges: G.B. Pattanaik & M.B. Shah,JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 04, 1999
Appearances:
Rajesh K.Sharma Adv. , Goodwill Indeevar Adv. for the appellant
Prem Malhotra Adv. , for the Respondent
Prem Malhotra Adv. , for the Respondent
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
Sec. 50, 52, 55, 57 -Non -compliance-Chance recovery. Held that in view of Balbir Singh’s case JT 1994 (2) SC 108and Mohinder Kumar’s case (AIR 1995 SC 1157) the conviction is bad in law. Accused acquitted. Appeal allowed.
(Para 1)
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
Sec. 50, 52, 55, 57 -Non -compliance-Chance recovery. Held that in view of Balbir Singh’s case JT 1994 (2) SC 108and Mohinder Kumar’s case (AIR 1995 SC 1157) the conviction is bad in law. Accused acquitted. Appeal allowed.
(Para 1)
Cases Reffered:
1. Mohinder Kumar .v State, Panaji, Goa AIR 1995 S-c 1157
2. State of Punjab .v Balbir Singh JT 1994 (2) SC 108
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The appellant was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar under section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 for having found to be in possession of 250 grms. opium without any permit or licence and sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years. On appeal, the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence and hence the present appeal. Before the High Court it was urged on behalf of the appellant that the provisions of sections 50, 52, 55 and 57 of the Act had not been complied with. The High Court considered these provisions but was of the opinion that the concerned officer having accidentally recovered the article in question, question of following section 50 did not arise. So far as the noncompliance of the other provisions are concerned, the High Court was of the view that even though the provisions of section 55 may be mandatory but no prejudice having been caused the conviction does not get vitiated. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that in view of the decision of this Court in the case of State of Punjab .v Balbir Singh JT 1994 (2) SC 108 as well as three Judge Bench decision in the case of Mohinder Kumar .v State, Panaji, Goa AIR 1995 Sc 1157 the conclusion of the high Court is not sustainable in law and the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained.We find sufficient force in the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, in view of the pronouncement of this Court in the aforesaid cases and in view of the finding as recorded in the judgment of the High Court that provisions of sections 55 and 57 have not been complied with the conviction is bad in law. The appellant has already undergone sentence for 9 years. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and that of the learned Additional Sessions Judge Hissar and acquit the appellant of the charges levelled against him. The appeal is accordingly, allowed. The bail bond stands discharged.
1. The appellant was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar under section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 for having found to be in possession of 250 grms. opium without any permit or licence and sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years. On appeal, the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence and hence the present appeal. Before the High Court it was urged on behalf of the appellant that the provisions of sections 50, 52, 55 and 57 of the Act had not been complied with. The High Court considered these provisions but was of the opinion that the concerned officer having accidentally recovered the article in question, question of following section 50 did not arise. So far as the noncompliance of the other provisions are concerned, the High Court was of the view that even though the provisions of section 55 may be mandatory but no prejudice having been caused the conviction does not get vitiated. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that in view of the decision of this Court in the case of State of Punjab .v Balbir Singh JT 1994 (2) SC 108 as well as three Judge Bench decision in the case of Mohinder Kumar .v State, Panaji, Goa AIR 1995 Sc 1157 the conclusion of the high Court is not sustainable in law and the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained.We find sufficient force in the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, in view of the pronouncement of this Court in the aforesaid cases and in view of the finding as recorded in the judgment of the High Court that provisions of sections 55 and 57 have not been complied with the conviction is bad in law. The appellant has already undergone sentence for 9 years. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and that of the learned Additional Sessions Judge Hissar and acquit the appellant of the charges levelled against him. The appeal is accordingly, allowed. The bail bond stands discharged.
