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

2013 Supreme(Raj) 1948

SANDEEP MEHTA
Netram – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Appellant:R.K. Charan, Advocate.
For the Respondent-State: Rajlaxmi, Public Prosecutor.

JUDGMENT

1. - The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant Netram against the judgment dated 29.08.2008 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No. 56/2005 whereby he was convicted for the offence under Section 8/15(c) of the NDPS Act and was sentenced to undergo eleven years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo two years & six months' simple imprisonment.

2. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that Mahendra Dutt PW8 posted as the S.H.O. at the P.S. Bhirani, was on patrolling duty on 11.10.2005. He received an information at about 4:00 P.M. that the appellant was indulged in illegal trade of contraband poppy straw. The informant reported that the appellant had concealed two bags of poppy straw in his house and was on the look out to sell the same. The information was taken down in writing and a copy thereof was sent to the Circle Officer, Nohar. Thereafter, the S.H.O. summoned two motbirs and proceeded to the house allegedly owned by the appellant in the Village Gandhi Badi. It is said that a person was seen standing in front of the house. On

























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

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

None of the cases explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or explicitly treated as bad law based solely on the provided descriptions. There are no clear statements such as "overruled," "reversed," or "criticized" in the summaries. Therefore, based on the information available, no case is definitively identified as bad law.

Several cases repeatedly cite the decision in "Netram v." (e.g., MANJEETSINGH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN - 2019 0 Supreme(Raj) 413, Suresh VS State of Rajasthan, Through PP - 2019 0 Supreme(Raj) 462, Rekha Ram VS State of Rajasthan - 2019 0 Supreme(Raj) 623, Raju VS State - 2019 0 Supreme(Raj) 1520, Suresh Kumar VS State - 2019 0 Supreme(Raj) 1912, Kailash Singh VS State - 2019 0 Supreme(Raj) 1862, Buta Singh VS State - 2020 0 Supreme(Raj) 230, Ratan Lal S/o Dalu Lal Kumawat VS State - 2022 0 Supreme(Raj) 138) and describe reliance on it for legal arguments. This indicates that "Netram v." is considered authoritative or binding in subsequent rulings.

Cases such as Amit Kumar VS State of Rajasthan - 2018 0 Supreme(Raj) 1949, Samrath Kanhaiyalal Meena VS State of Rajasthan - 2018 0 Supreme(Raj) 1250, Champa Lal @ Champa Ram @ Mukesh VS State of Rajasthan, Through PP - 2019 0 Supreme(Raj) 2591, Ratan Lal VS State of Rajasthan, Through PP - 2019 0 Supreme(Raj) 2507, MANJEETSINGH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN - 2019 0 Supreme(Raj) 413, Suresh VS State of Rajasthan, Through PP - 2019 0 Supreme(Raj) 462, Rajunath S/o Sh. Ratannath VS State, through P. P. - 2019 0 Supreme(Raj) 472, Rekha Ram VS State of Rajasthan - 2019 0 Supreme(Raj) 623, Raju VS State - 2019 0 Supreme(Raj) 1520, Suresh Kumar VS State - 2019 0 Supreme(Raj) 1912, Kailash Singh VS State - 2019 0 Supreme(Raj) 1862, Buta Singh VS State - 2020 0 Supreme(Raj) 230, Ratan Lal S/o Dalu Lal Kumawat VS State - 2022 0 Supreme(Raj) 138, and Ramdev VS State - 2022 0 Supreme(Raj) 2134 show consistent reliance on the "Netram" decision, suggesting it is treated as good law and a binding precedent.

There are no explicit indications that any case has distinguished or set apart from "Netram" or other cases, based solely on the summaries.

The repeated reliance on "Netram" without noting any deviation suggests that it remains a relevant and uncriticized authority.

Some cases (Amit Kumar VS State of Rajasthan - 2018 0 Supreme(Raj) 1949, Samrath Kanhaiyalal Meena VS State of Rajasthan - 2018 0 Supreme(Raj) 1250, Charlse Howell @ Abel Kom VS N C B - 2018 0 Supreme(Del) 1936, Champa Lal @ Champa Ram @ Mukesh VS State of Rajasthan, Through PP - 2019 0 Supreme(Raj) 2591) mention the "decision in Netram" and similar issues but do not specify whether the decision has been overruled or criticized. Without explicit language, the treatment remains uncertain.

The references to "in support of arguments" and reliance on "Netram" imply adherence but do not confirm whether the case has been universally followed or whether there has been any judicial criticism.

Cases like Ramdev VS State - 2022 0 Supreme(Raj) 2134 and Arun Kumar Pandey S/o Jaleshwar Pandey VS Union Of India, Through PP. - 2023 0 Supreme(Raj) 81 cite earlier decisions but do not specify their current standing or treatment status, making their treatment ambiguous.

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