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

MANOHARAN
Peter – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the parties:
For the Petitioner – M/s. G. Varghese Kannan thanam, K. Rainje & K. Kochumol.
For the Respondent - M. Ratna Singh, D.G. of Prosecution.

ORDER

Manoharan, J. - These petitions are under section 439, Cr. P.C. Petitioners/accused in both the cases are accused of having committed offences punishable under section 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act').

2. In Crl. M.C. 253 of 1993 the allegation against the petitioner is that he kept 8.5 Kgs. of Ganja in two bags in his almirah in his house on 30.8.1992 and was recovered by the Circle Inspector of Police, Adimali. The allegation against the petitioners in Crl. M.C. 267 of 1993 is that they were found holding packets containing ganja at 9.30 p.m. on 14.10.1992. Petitioner in Crl. M.C. 253/93 was arrested on 30.8.1992 and petitioners in Crl. M.C. 267/93 were arrested on 14.10.1992 it is alleged that ever after that the said petitioners are in custody. According to the petitioners, section 37 of the Act is not applicable to this case as the period fixed in the proviso to section 167(2) of the Cr. P.C. is over. Reliance was placed on the decision in Berlin Joseph @ Ravi and another v. State and others, (1992 (1) KLT, 514 (FB). It is also contended by them that, since section 37 is applicable only to cases where the minimum

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top