YOSEF BEN SHOSHAN v. STATE
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
Mr. Salil Saudagar, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. C.A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor for the Respondent. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 2nd March, 2009
ORAL ORDER:
Heard Shri Saudagar on behalf of the appellant and Shri C.A. Ferreira, the learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the respondent.
The appellant was an accused, who has been acquitted under Section 22(C) of the NDPS Act, 1985 but the amount of Rs. 12,215/- and US dollars, $1060 found on the person of the accused respectively have been ordered to be forfeited. No particular reasons have been assigned by the learned Sessions Judge as to why the said amount is ordered to be forfeited when the other articles including a Nokia Cell Phone, etc. have been ordered to be returned to the accused.
Counsel on behalf of the appellant has placed reliance on an order of this Court dated 7/07/2008 in Criminal Revision Application No. 37 of 2008, wherein this Court had observed thus; "The learned Counsel on behalf of the accused states that the Indian currency which was in the wallet has been returned to the accused. M.O. No. 4 currency, as per panchanama dated 18-1-2006 was in a purse which was hanging around the neck of the accused. In other words, it was found on his person and since the accused has been acquitted there was no reason why the said currency ought to have been forfeited in favour of the Government, unless there were special circumstances. "
In the light of the above, the said Indian currency as well as US dollars shall be returned to the appellant/accused.
Application disposed of on the above terms. NH N. A. BRITTO, J.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 22(C).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 02 Mar 2009. The bench was N A BRITTO.
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.