Judgment · High Court · 2008
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Mr.Shirish Gupte, Sr.Advocate a/w Mr. G.S. Pikale i/b S.V. Pikale & Co. for the applicants. Mr.H.V. Mehta a/w Mr. J.C. Satpute for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. A.S. Gadkari, APP for the State :2: CORAM CORAM CORAM MHASE AND S.B. MHASE AND S.B.S.B. MHASE AND SAYED, JJ. A.A. SAYED, JJ. A.A.A.A. SAYED, JJ. : 15TH DECEMBER, 2008 DATE : 15TH DECEMBER, 2008 DATEDATE : 15TH DECEMBER, 2008 P.C.
Heard both sides.
It is brought to our notice that the inquiry into the notice dated 15-9-2008 under section 68H(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is not stayed by the Supreme Court. This order has been passed by the Apex Court in Contempt Petition (c) No. 223/2008 in Criminal Appeal No.1053/2003. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the said notice and in view of the direction of the Supreme Court, it appears that the inquiry will have to go on. :3:
However, the Supreme Court has laid down in what manner the inquiry can Aslam Mohd. be made in a judgment of Aslam Mohd. Aslam Mohd. V. Competent Authority and Merchant V. Competent Authority and Merchant V. Competent Authority and Merchant others, reported in 2008 (10) Scale 383. others others The said judgment is under review by the Supreme Court in view of a review application filed by the respondents. Therefore, till the judgment is reviewed and the ratio is altered if at all by the Supreme Court the respondents are bound to follow the said judgment and therefore, we observe that the inquiry in respect of notice under section 68H(1) of the NDPS Act 1985 shall continue in accordance with the said judgment and respondents shall not commit any obstruction in continuing with the inquiry in violation of the said judgment unless and until the judgment is reviewed by the Supreme Court. We make it clear that unless the judgment is modified, reviewed or otherwise dealt with by the Supreme Court, the respondents shall not :4: do any thing contrary to said Judgment in apprehension that the judgment will be modified by Supreme Court and till then, they shall do whatever as provided by the Supreme Court and nothing more than that. The respondents have already tendered a written apology.
2. Criminal Applications disposed of. ((( A.A. SAYED, J.) A.A. SAYED, J.) A.A. SAYED, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J) J) J) (S.B.MHASE, (S.B.MHASE,
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 68H(1).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 15 Dec 2008. The bench was S B MHASE, S B S B MHASE, SAYED, A A SAYED, A A A A SAYED.
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.