9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2004 (9) TMI 606 - SC - Indian LawsWhether High Court was correct to set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by Additional Sessions in Sessions trial No. 29 of 1990 convicting the respondent-herein Babu Chakraborthy under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 and sentencing him for rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and pay a fine of Rs. l lakh in default of which one more year of imprisonment is to be undergone? Held that - The impugned judgment directing the State Government to pay Rs. l lakh as compensation to the accused caused a great prejudice to the State. There was no ground for coming to such conclusion. In this regard the High Court also has omitted to take note of the fact that the action taken under the Act in good faith is protected under Section 69 of the Act. The judgment of the High Court passing strictures against the professionals/ officials amounts to condemning the affected parties without being heard. In paragraph supra we have already discussed about the non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Act by the appellants 2-3. Under such circumstances we are of the opinion that the judgment of the High Court cannot be characterized as perverse judgment warranting interference in appeal by this Court. Hence we are of the opinion that no compensation can be awarded to the accused in the facts and circumstances of this case. We therefore allow the appeal in part and set aside that part of the impugned judgment ordering compensation to the accused and also the direction to launch prosecution against PW 2 and PW 4 (2nd appellant) under Section 58 of the NDPS Act. Appeal pertly allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Justification of the action taken under Section 21 of the NDPS Act. 2. Legitimacy of the High Court's direction to pay compensation. 3. Compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. 4. Validity of the High Court's strictures against police officers. 5. Awarding of compensation under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Justification of the Action Taken under Section 21 of the NDPS Act: The prosecution's case was based on a raid conducted at the respondent's house, leading to the seizure of 3 gms 25 mgs of Heroin. The accused was charged under Section 21 of the NDPS Act. The prosecution claimed compliance with Sections 41(2), 42(1) (2), 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, and 57 of the Act. However, the High Court found gross violations of these mandatory provisions, specifically Section 42(1) and the proviso to Section 42(1), which require that information be taken down in writing and that searches conducted between sunset and sunrise must be accompanied by recorded reasons. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's finding of non-compliance, which vitiated the prosecution's case. 2. Legitimacy of the High Court's Direction to Pay Compensation: The High Court directed the State of West Bengal to pay Rs. 1 lakh as compensation to the respondent, with liberty to recover the amount from appellant No. 2. The Supreme Court found this direction unjustified, noting that the officers were discharging their statutory duties in good faith, protected under Section 69 of the NDPS Act. There was no evidence of malafides on the part of the officers. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the compensation order. 3. Compliance with Mandatory Provisions of the NDPS Act: The High Court identified several discrepancies and non-compliance with mandatory provisions: - Failure to record information in writing as required by Section 42(1). - Conducting a search after sunset without recording the grounds of belief as mandated by the proviso to Section 42(1). - Non-compliance with Section 42(2), which requires sending a copy of the recorded information to the immediate superior within 72 hours. - The Supreme Court affirmed these findings, citing precedents that emphasize the mandatory nature of these provisions and their importance in ensuring a fair trial. 4. Validity of the High Court's Strictures Against Police Officers: The High Court passed strictures against appellant Nos. 2 and 3 and directed the Magistrate to prosecute them under Section 58 of the NDPS Act and Sections 166 and 167 of the IPC. The Supreme Court found these strictures unjustified, as they were made without giving the officers an opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court expunged these remarks and the direction to prosecute the officers. 5. Awarding of Compensation under Section 482 Cr.P.C.: The respondent's counsel argued that the High Court could award compensation under Section 482 Cr.P.C., citing precedents where compensation was awarded for illegal incarceration. The Supreme Court, however, found no basis for awarding compensation in this case, given the officers' actions were in good faith and protected under Section 69 of the NDPS Act. The compensation order was thus set aside. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's acquittal of the respondent due to non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act but set aside the compensation order and expunged the strictures against the police officers. The appeal was partly allowed, maintaining the High Court's judgment in all other respects.
|
