SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1994 Supreme(Bom) 454

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(NAGPUR BENCH)
R.M. Lodha, J.
Syed Jamir s/o. Syed Usman.... Appellant.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra.... Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 339 of 1993, decided on 29-8-1994.
Advocates appeared :
M.R. Daga, for the appellant.
V.M. Deshpande, A.G.P., for the State.

Headnote:Sections 20(b)(i), 41 and 42-Seizure of arrest-Only authorised officers or valid authority to subordinates can effect It under Sections 41 and 42-ln non-complying with Sections 41 and 42 trial be vitiated.

       Sections 20(b)(i), 52 and 57-Provisions of Section 52 and 57 not mandatory-Unless prejudice caused to accused, non- compliance of vitiate on a trial.

       Section 50- Officer-Effective search-Absence of his cross-examination-Clear, specific and unambiguous mention the fact in seizure memo that accused asked if wanted search taken in presence of panchas or Gazetted Officer-Held; that provision of Section 50 complied with.

JUDGMENT - R.M. LODHA, J. :--Sense and soundness of the judgment dated 5th July, 1993 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Akola in Sessions Trial No. 130 of 1991, State of Maharashtra v. Syed Jamir, whereby he has convicted the accused-appellant of the offence under section 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the NDPS Act) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year, is under challenge in this criminal appeal filed by the appellant-accused.

2. Pralhad Suryabhan Khillare, B/No. 171, Police Station Ural gave a complaint to the Police Station, Ural, Sub-division Akot, District Akola that on 26-4-1991 while he was in the Police Station, a secret informer came to the Police Station and gave information that at Nimba - Fatta four persons having suit cases and bundles of Ganja were gossiping and making suspicious movements. When Pralhad Khillare received this information from the informer, then he, Police Station Officer Shri S.V. Jadhav, H.C. Shankar B/No. 896, Motiram, B/No. 383 and few other police constables went to Nimba Fatta and made enquiry about the said persons. It was revealed during the enquiry that the said persons proceeded on foot from the said Fatta towards Karanja and to catch those persons, it was decided by the Police Station Officer that all of them should proceed in four groups. Police Head Constable Pralhad and one Police Constable B/No/ 2017 formed one group and they started going on foot by road. When they were proceeding further, they saw those four persons going with luggages and suit cases. On seeing police, those four persons ran away. Pralhad along with Ramrao Deshmukh, resident of Nimba and Pandharinath, also resident of Nimba, chased those persons and caught hold of one of them, took him into custody and also the bundle. The said person disclosed his name as Syed Jamir, aged about 50 years, resident of Mullani Chowk, Khadan area, Akola. On taking search of the bundle with that person, Ganja weighing 8 kgs. and 250 gms. valuing Rs. 8,010/- along with cotton carpet bag was seized from him. On this complaint, First Information Report bearing Crime No. 42 of 1991 dated 26-4-1991 at 18.05 hours against the accused/appellant was lodged at Police Station, Ural, Sub-division Akot, District Akola.

3. Exhibit 16, dated 14-6-1991 is an invoice challan whereby one duly sealed parcel was sent through P.C. Sitaram, B/No. 1399 to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory.

4. Seizure Panchanama (Exh. 9) is dated 26-4-1991 and gives the details about the seizure. It is recorded in the said seizure memo that H.C. Khillare (P.W. 2) at the time of seizure told the accused his intention of taking search of the said bundle and further asked him whether he wanted to take search in presence of panchas and Gazetted Officer, but he declined and permitted to take search of the bundle and then the said property was seized after taking search of the said bundle in the presence of two panchas viz., Ramrao s/o. Bapurao Deshmukh (P.W. 1) and Pandharinath who has not been examined during the trial. In the trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, the prosecution in addition to the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence, examined Pralhad Khillare (P.W. 2) and Sitaram (P.W. 3). Pralhad (P.W. 2) in his deposition before the Court has reiterated the complaint made by him at the Police Station, Ural on 26-4-1991 which has been registered as Crime No. 42 of 1991. He has stated before the Court in his deposition that while he was present at the Police Station, Ural on 26-4-1991, he received secret information that at Nimba Fatta, four persons with two suit cases and three bundles were standing and their movements were suspicious. The information was noted down by the Police Station Officer and then he, Police Station Officer and other police staff proceeded to Nimba Fatta by police van







































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top