✦ Bombay High Court · 17 Aug 2004

Gangsingh @ Vijay Harishing v. State of Maharashtra

Case at a glance

Outcome

Allowed

appeals are allowed

Key paragraphs

  • Para 11. For reasons separately recorded, both the appeals are allowed. The conviction of all the accused i.e. accused nos.1 and 2 u/ss.29 r/w Sec.21 and 8(c) of NDPS Act, 1985 and the sentence imposed are set aside. They are in custody. They shall be released…

Judgment

Nitin Jamdar with Vijay Killedar, adv. for Accused no.2. A.M.Shringarpure, AGP for State. CORAM : D.G.DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 17th August 2004. PC :

#1. For reasons separately recorded, both the appeals are allowed. The conviction of all the accused i.e. accused nos.1 and 2 u/ss.29 r/w Sec.21 and 8(c) of NDPS Act, 1985 and the sentence imposed are set aside. They are in custody. They shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. If the accused have paid any fine, the same shall be returned to them. Rest of the order about disposal of the Muddemal property shall remain the same. (D.G.DESHPANDE, J.)

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: appeals are allowed

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — ss. 8(c), 21.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Bombay High Court, on 17 Aug 2004. The bench was D G DESHPANDE.

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.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Bombay High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Criminal Appeal No. 825 of 2000). ← Search more judgments