MOHANLALRAICHANDJI BISNOI v. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
(cid:9)Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the
Provisions considered
Judgment
MR. YF MEHTA, APP for Respondent No. 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE N.J.PANDYA and MR.JUSTICE H.L.GOKHALE Date of decision: 13/01/97 ORAL JUDGEMENT: (Per Gokhale, J.)
1.(cid:9)This is an appeal against the judgment of the learned City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Court No.22), in Sessions Case No.144 of 1989, decided on 25th August,
1989. The appellant herein was charge sheeted for being found in possession of opium of the quantity of 5.225 kgs. He was accosted on 23rd February, 1989 at about
9.45 A.M. near Gitamandir S.T. Bus Stand, Ahmedabad. He was subsequently arrested for breach of Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ("NDPS Act" for short). After the necessary trial, he was convicted and sentenced for 10 years R.I. and fine of Rs.1 lakh, and in default, R.I. for two years. No separate sentence was passed under Section 66-A of the Bombay Police Act, which was also invoked against the accused.
2.(cid:9)In this appeal, Mr. Budhbhatti, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant has drawn our attention to the deposition of Hirabhai G. Damor, the P.S.I., who investigated the matter. In his deposition, which is recorded at Ex.88, page 95, he has admitted that, after the appellant was accosted and when the Panchnama was drawn, he did not send him to any Gazetted Officer which is a necessary requisite under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. Mr. Budhbhatti relies upon the observations of the Supreme Court in paragraph 26 of its judgment in the case of State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, reported in AIR 1994 SC 1872. Therein the Supreme Court has laid down that while acting under the Act, the officer has to comply with the provisions of Section 50 and the persons has to be informed that if he so requires, he shall be produced before the Gazetted Officer. It is an obligatory responsibility of the Police Officer to inform the person to be searched. Inasmuch as the provision is not followed, the conviction stands vitiated.
Operative part
3.(cid:9)Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the appellant-accused is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith , if not required for any other purpose. Fine, if any paid, will be refunded. ...
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: (cid:9)Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India; Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — ss. 18, 50; Bombay Police Act.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Gujarat High Court, on 13 Jan 1997. The bench was H L GOKHALE.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.