Back
Karnataka High Court
A.V.Dharmasingh - Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka by State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore - Respondent
Decided On : 09-18-92
CRI.PETN. : 959 of 1992
Narcotic Drugs Act - Bail Provisions - Section 37 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs Act was discussed, which provides for offences to be cognizable and non-bailable. The court interpreted the provision and its applicability to offences punishable with imprisonment of 5 years or more. The court also considered the compliance with mandatory provisions regarding search and seizure under Sections 42 and 50 of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were accused of offences under the Narcotic Drugs Act and sought bail. The court considered the applicability of Section 37 of the Act, compliance with search and seizure provisions, and the petitioners' involvement in previous cases.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that Section 37 of the Act applies only to offences punishable with imprisonment of 5 years or more. It also held that non-compliance with mandatory provisions regarding search and seizure would entitle the accused to bail. The court rejected the argument that the petitioner's involvement in previous cases was a ground to deny bail.
Issues: The issues involved the interpretation of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs Act, compliance with search and seizure provisions, and the relevance of the petitioner's involvement in previous cases to the bail decision.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 37, the applicability of bail provisions, and the importance of compliance with search and seizure provisions in determining bail eligibility.
Final Decision: The petitions were allowed, and the petitioners were granted bail with specific conditions.
( 1 ) CRIMINAL Petition 959/92 is filed by the petitioners. who are accused in Crime No. 70/92 of Ashoknagar Police Station, Gulbarga and Criminal Petition 1064/92 is filed by the petitioner who is accused in Crime No. 84/92 of Madikeri Town Police Station. Both these petitions have been placed before this Bench for disposal as per the orders of the acting Chief Justice. Since both these petitions involve common questions of law, I have heard them together and I am passing a common order in them.
( 2 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Govt. Pleader for the respondent and perused the records of the case.
( 3 ) IN Criminal Petition 959/92 the petitioners are the accused in Crime No. 70/92 of Ashoknagar Police Station which is registered for the offence punishable under Section 17 of the Narcotic Drugs Act on the allegation that on credible information the police went to the spot and found the petitioners transporting 40 Kgs. of ganja and they were caught red-handed at the Central Bus-stand, Gulbarga. The police have completed investigation of the case and they have filed charge-sheet against the petitioners for the offence punishable under S. 20 of the Narcotic Drugs Act (Which will hereinafter be referred to as the 'act' ).
( 4 ) THE petitioner in Cr. P. 1064/92 is an accused in Crime No. 59/90 (C. C. No. 512/91) for the offence punishable under the Act and the allegation against him is that on 10-4-1990 at about 5. 30 p. m. he and the other i accused in the case were found selling ganja in small packets in their house at Madikeri Town and 30 Kgs. of ganja was seized from the along with some petty amount. The police have completed investigation and they have filed charge-sheet in this case. There are two accused in this case. One of the accused is a woman and, therefore, she has been granted bail by the trial Court. The learned Govt. Pleader has submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to bail, in view of the special provisions regarding bail enacted in S. 37 of the Act. Section 37 of the Act reads as follows :-"section 37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable :- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) - (a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable; (b) No person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be realesed on bail or on his own bond unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in Cl. (b) of Sub-Section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail. "
( 5 ) THE learned Govt. Pleader relied on 1991 Criminal Law Journal 654 (AIR 1991 SC 558) (Narcoitics Control Bureau v. Kishan Lal) wherein the Supreme Court has laid down as follows "section 37 as amended starts with a non-obstante clause stating that notwithstanding anything contained in Criminal P. C. 1973 no person accused of an offence prescribed therein shall be released on bail unless the conditions contained therein were satisfied. The N. D. P. S. Act is a special enactment and it was enacted with a view to make stringent provisions for the control and regulation of operations relating to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. That being the underlying object and particularly when the provisions of S. 37 of NDPS Act are in negative terms limiting the scope of the applicability of the provisions of Cr. P. C. regarding bail, it cannot be said that the High Court's powers to grant bail under S. 439, Cr. P. C. are not s
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
