Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
K. VENKATASWAMI, K. SWAMIDURAI
SUNDARESAN ALIAS MEGANATHAN ALIAS MEGA - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondents
C. O. 3841 Of 1993
Decided On : 05/18/1993
The court held that the petitioner was entitled to be released on bail. The court found that the provisions of Sections 41 to 57 of the NDPS Act are mandatory and that violation of the same would be fatal to the case of the prosecution and that the compliance of the mandatory provisions can be looked into even at the time of grant of bail also.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was arrested and charged with an offence punishable under Section 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The petitioner filed a petition for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The petitioner contended that the order of remand was illegal and that the entire story of the prosecution was false and fabricated. The petitioner also contended that the mandatory procedures prescribed in the NDPS Act were not followed and that the petitioner was subjected to untold sorrow. The respondent opposed the bail application and contended that the petitioner was keeping Ganja, on the carrier of a Bicycle in a bag, that he was checked and arrested at 7.15 p.m. on 5-3-93 in the presence of two mahazar witnesses in the junction between Prakasam Street and Bashyam Street, half kilo metre from R.4 Pondy Bazaar Police Station and that he was produced before the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, at 9.00 a.m. on 6-3-93.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the provisions of Sections 41 to 57 of the NDPS Act are mandatory and that violation of the same would be fatal to the case of the prosecution and that the compliance of the mandatory provisions can be looked into even at the time of grant of bail also. The court also found that the respondent had not informed the petitioner of the grounds of arrest and that the respondent had not reduced into writing of his belief from personal knowledge that the petitioner was in possession of the narcotic substance as per Section 42 of the NDPS Act. The court held that this was a violation of the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to be released on bail. 2. Whether the provisions of Sections 41 to 57 of the NDPS Act are mandatory and that violation of the same would be fatal to the case of the prosecution. 3. Whether the compliance of the mandatory provisions can be looked into even at the time of grant of bail also.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was entitled to be released on bail. The court found that the provisions of Sections 41 to 57 of the NDPS Act are mandatory and that violation of the same would be fatal to the case of the prosecution and that the compliance of the mandatory provisions can be looked into even at the time of grant of bail also. The court also found that the respondent had not informed the petitioner of the grounds of arrest and that the respondent had not reduced into writing of his belief from personal knowledge that the petitioner was in possession of the narcotic substance as per Section 42 of the NDPS Act. The court held that this was a violation of the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and directed release of the petitioner on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) only with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet Madras and on further condition that the petitioner should report before the respondent/police at 10-30 a.m. on every Monday for four weeks.
( 1 ) THE accused in Crime No. 211 of 1993 on the file of the Inspector of Police, R4 Pondy Bassar Police Station, Madras has filed this petition for grant of bail under Section 439 of the Codeof Criminal Procedure.
( 2 ) THE petitioner stands charged for A offence punishable under Section 20 (b) (i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Sub-tances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as NDPS Act ). The respondent is stated to have seized one kilo and 50 grams of Ganja from the petitioner on 5-3-1993 at about 9. 30 p. m. and remanded to judicial custody on 6-3-93 at about 9. 00 a. m. for fifteen days. The petitioner submits that the order of remand is illegal and that the entire story of the prosecution is false and fabricated. The case of the petitioner is that after the arrest on 5-3-93 at 9. 30 p. m. he was confined in a hotel room and that the petitioner was not informed of the grounds of arrest, nor was he permitted to inform his people or to consult his legal practitioner of is choice. According to the petitioner, all the mandatory procedures prescribed in the NDPS Act were not followed and the petitioner was subjected to untold sorrow. No case has been made out against the petitioner. The petitioner is an upright man with honest means and he has no previous bad antecedents. He had not committed any offence at any time, much less any offence under the NDPS Act. The petitioner is a law abiding citizen and he will not flee from justice. The petitioner will abide by any conditions that may be imposed if he is released on bail.
( 3 ) THE petitioner has filed a typed set in which he has filed a copy of the F. I. R. in Cr. No. 211/93 on the file on the respondent-police, copy of remand order dated 6-3-93, supporting affidavit of Vijayalakshmi, w/o. J. Jayakumar filed in Crl. M. P. No. 1098 of 1993, copy of telegram sent by Vijayalakshmi Jayakumar to the President of India, New Delhi affidavit of Sundaresen alias Meganathan alias Mega, the petitioner herein filed in Crl. M. P. No. 1098/93 and supporting affidavit of Shanmugham alias Shyam filed in Crl. M. P. No. 1098/93. A copy of the typed set was also furnished to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor in this case. There is no opposition for receiving this typed set containing the abovesaid affidavits etc.
( 4 ) VIJAYALAKSHMI in her supporting affidavit has stated as follows :- She is the wife of J. Jayakumar, the brother of Hon'ble Chief Minister Dr. Selvi Jayalalitha. Vijayalakshmi is having a son and a daughter. The petitioner and his family are living with them, assisting her and her husband. The petitioner is with their family for over fifteen years and is also having certain properties - the petitioner is a well-informed person. The petitioner used to go to the house of the Hon'ble Chief Minister as and when they would ask him to go there on some work or other. The petitioner was very much interested in bringing their family and the family of the Hon'ble Chief Minister closer than ever before. It was disliked by Mrs. Sasikala, who is a good friend of the Hon'ble Chief Minister. Mrs. Sasikala had an intent that the petitioner should be driven away from their family so as to make their family helpless and to keep their family at a distance from the family of the Hon'ble Chief Minister. Perhaps it might not have reached the knowledge of the Hon'ble Chief Minister. Mrs. Sasikala has been acting against them with malicious intent for mischievous ends. Mrs. Vijayalakshmi suspects that as a part of game, the petitioner was arrested and kept in custody, for no fault of his. The petitioner was away from Madras and attending to the work at the Farm at Sunguvarchatram on 3-3-93, 4-3-93 and 5-3-93 as per their direction. He is also one of the Directors of the Company called J. J. Marine Products Private Limited which runs the Farm at Sunguvarchatram. The petitioner returned to their house at 8. 45 p. m. on 5-3-93. At about 9. 00 p. m. on 5-3-93, a phone call came f
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
