Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2001 (8) TMI 736

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... l compliance has been made, as in the present case it would not vitiate the prosecution case. In the present case, we find PW5 has sent all the relevant material to his superior officer immediately. Thus we do not find any violation of Section 57 of the Act. - 1022 of 1997 - - - Dated:- 7-8-2001 - Dr. A.S. Anand, CJI, A.P. Misra and Shivaraj V. Patil, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri R. Sathish and T.G.N. Nair, Advocates, for the Appellant. S/Shri K.M.K. Nair and Vipin Nair, Advocates, for the Respondent. [Judgment per : A.P. Misra, J.]. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Kerala in criminal appeal setting aside an order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court convicting the appellant .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nges and a purse containing currency note of Rs. 10/-. At the spot one ampoule was taken as sample for chemical analysis and the said contraband articles were seized as per Ex. Pl seizure mahazar prepared at the spot. The appellant was also arrested there. The chargesheet was submitted, the appellant pleaded not guilty. 3. The trial court found discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses thus disbelieved the prosecution story, hence acquitted the appellant. 4. In the trial court records, Ex. P8 is a certificate of analysis issued by the Regional Chemical Examiner s Laboratory, Kakkanad, which shows that the articles seized was Buprenorphine Hydrochloride solution containing 0.3 milligram of Buprenorphine per milli litre a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ity of the prosecution story. The High Court on reappraisal of evidence came to the conclusion that the trial court was not justified in acquitting the appellant. It held that the prosecution has established with positive evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant has committed an offence punishable under Section 21 of the Act, hence convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. 5. The leaned Counsel for the appellant submits with vehemence that the prosecution has violated mandatory provisions of the Act, namely Section 42, Section 50 and Section 57, hence conviction and sentence is liable to be set aside. 6. With regard to Section 42, the submission is that PW5 has not recorded the information given by PW3 with respect .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... stringency for an accused by casting an obligation on the prosecution for its strict compliance. The stringency is because of the type of crime involved under it, so that no such person escapes from the clutches of law. The court however while construing such provisions strictly should not interpret it so literally so as to render its compliance, impossible. However, before drawing such an inference, it should be examined with caution and circumspection. In other words, if in a case, the following of mandate strictly, results in delay in trapping an accused, which may lead the accused to escape, then prosecution case should not be thrown out. 7. In the present case, PW3 the Head Constable got information with reference to the appellant on .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... arch was made. 10. In the present case we find the High Court recorded a finding that PW5 informed the appellant about his right as provided under Section 50 of the Act which is established not only by the oral evidence of PWs. 1, 3 and 5, but also by the recitals made in Ext. Pl the seizure mahazar prepared by PW5 and the F.I. Statement given by the respondent (the appellant before us). The submission, however, is communicating orally to the appellant is not a compliance under Section 50. We cannot agree. The aforesaid Constitution Bench upholds oral communication also to be valid under Section 50 of the Act. Hence, this submission has no merit. 11. Thus in our considered opinion, we do not find, on the facts of this case, as also reco .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates