Cause Title:
Mahesh Laxmanbhai Patel Vs. State Of Gujarat
Date Of Judgement:
10 May 2002
Judge(s):
Justice K R Vyas
Justice R R Tripathi
Parties:
Appellant(s) -Mahesh Laxmanbhai Patel
Respondent(s) -State of Gujarat
SUBJECT
The appeal was filed against the learned Additional City Sessions Judge's judgment and order, in which the appellant was found guilty under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentenced to R.I. for ten years and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, with six months of R.I. if he did not comply.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter as the NDPS Act)
Section 8(c): Prohibition on producing, manufacturing, possessing, selling, purchasing, transporting, warehousing, using, consuming, importing, exporting, or transshipping any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, except for medicinal or scientific purposes.
Section 21: Punishment for contravention in relation to manufactured drugs and preparations.
Section 52: Disposal of persons arrested and articles seized.
Section 57: Report of arrest and seizure.
OVERVIEW
- The police inspector in charge of the narcotics unit received information that a man named Mahesh Patel was selling brown sugar packets. Following that, he arranged for panchas and other necessary items for the raid.
- During the raid, the appellant was notified in front of panchas that the police had information that he was in possession of brown sugar packages and that he would be searched as a result. He was also asked if he wanted the search to take place in the presence of any Gazetted Officers or Magistrates. He was also asked if he wanted to search the panchas as well as the raiding party members. In front of the panchas, the appellant said that he didn't want either.
- Following the discovery of 'brown sugar' from the appellant, a complaint was filed.
- The appellant was found guilty under Sections 8(C) and 21 of the NDPS Act, and an appeal was filed with the High Court.
ISSUE
- Whether there was any violation of Sections 52 and 57 of the NDPS Act, while raiding the appellant.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
It was argued that there was a violation of Section 57 of the NDPS Act, and that because Section 57 was held to be mandatory by the Supreme Court in Mohinder Kumar vs. State of Panaji [AIR 1995 SC 815], the conviction and punishment imposed were required to be quashed and set aside by the Court, and the appellant was required to be acquitted. It was also argued that Section 52(A)(4) was not followed because the prosecution withheld the key evidence and only supplied secondary evidence, which was not admissible in law, according to the Counsel, and so the prosecution's case must collapse.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
It was argued that the learned Additional Sessions Judge's judgement and order should be upheld because the learned Judge had gone to great lengths to analyse all of the contentions throughout the trial and had offered cogent reasons for rejecting each one. It was also argued that the learned Advocate for the appellant had attempted to mislead the Court by failing to mention that he had appeared in a case where all of these arguments were raised, but were rejected by a Division Bench of this Court. It was further claimed that the case of Mohinder Kumar (supra) was presented to the Division Bench for consideration, but that the Division Bench had turned it down in its elaborative judgement. It was said that when it came to Section 52, it was also disputed, but the Division Bench dismissed it as well.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- After reviewing the Apex Court's decisions in State of Punjab vs Dalbir Singh [AIR 1999 SC 2378], Mohinder Kumar (supra), and Thandi Ram vs. State of Haryana [(2000) 1 SCC 318], the Court concluded that the Honorable Supreme Court had not declared Sections 52 and 57 of the Act to be mandatory. It was noteworthy that when this very contention was raised before the earlier Division Bench in the case of Raghubhai Gandabhai Bharwad vs. State of Gujarat in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2002, the Court, after considering the Honorable Apex Court's judgments in the cases of Balbir Singh (supra), Mohinder Kumar (supra), and in light of other Honorable Apex Court judgments, namely, in the matter of Gurubax Singh vs. State of Haryana [(2001) 3 SCC 28] and Sajan Abraham vs. State of Kerala [(2001) 6 SCC 692], held that, "the provisions of Sections 52 and 57 were not mandatory and if substantial compliance with it was made, it would not vitiate the prosecution case.”
- After being apprehended, the accused was brought before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court and remand was requested. The Court believed that this was a more stringent compliance than the "report" required by Section 57 of the NDPS Act. The officer has 48 hours to report to his immediate superior officer under Section 57. Because the officer in charge of the inquiry filed a report on the next available date, there was no violation of Section 57 in this case. In any case, the Court believed that this amounted to considerable compliance with Section 57 of the NDPS Act.
CONCLUSION
- The Court had also reviewed other information on the record of the case that supported the compliance of Section 50.
- The appeal was denied for the reasons stated above, and the case was dismissed. The appellant's conviction under Sections 8(C) and 21 of the NDPS Act, as well as the punishment imposed for the commission of the offence, were upheld.
To know more about NDPS Act, click here
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
