Criminal Appeal No. 1079 of 2002. Case: Narcotics Central Bureau Vs Sukh Dev Raj Sodhi. Supreme Court (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Appeal No. 1079 of 2002 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: P.K. Dey, Sadhana Sandhu, Rashmi, S.N. Terdal and Sushma Suri, Advs. and For Respondents: Khwairakpam Nobin Singh, Adv. |
| Judges | Ashok Kumar Ganguly and Deepak Verma, JJ. |
| Issue | Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 50 |
| Citation | AIR 2011 SC 1939, 2011 (2) Crimes 311 (SC), ILR 2011 (2) Kerala 681, 2011 (3) JCR 319 (SC), JT 2011 (6) SC 125, 2011 (4) MPHT 209, 2011 (3) PLJR 63, 2011 (6) SCALE 368, 2011 (6) SCC 392, 2011 (2) UC 1336, 2011 CriLJ 3107 |
| Judgement Date | May 20, 2011 |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
Judgment:
Asok Kumar Ganguly, J.
-
Heard learned Counsel for the Appellant. Despite notice, none appears for the Respondent.
-
This is an appeal by the Narcotics Central Bureau impugning judgment and order dated 11.01.2002 passed by the High Court whereby the High Court, on consideration of the facts and the legal position of the case, was pleased to hold that the mandatory provision of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'NDPS Act') has not been complied with and the violation of the said Act has vitiated the conviction and on that ground, the High Court was pleased to set aside the conviction and did not examine any other fact of the case. In this appeal also, we do not go into other factual aspects.
-
It is not in dispute that pursuant to the High Court's order, the Respondent is set at liberty.
-
Now, the learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that in the instant case, from the search notice (at Annexure P-1), it will appear that the requirement of Section 50 of the NDPS Act has been complied with. From the said notice, it appears that the accused was informed that he has the option of being searched either in the presence of gazette officer or Magistrate and it appears that the accused wanted to be searched in the presence of gazette officer. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that by giving the option to the accused, the Appellant has complied with the requirement under Section 50 of the NDPS Act.
-
The obligation of the authorities under Section 50 of the NDPS Act has come up for consideration before this Court in several cases and recently, the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat (2011) 1 SCC 609 has settled...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
ARIF KHAN @ AGHA KHAN vs THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND. Supreme Court, 27-04-2018
...or a Magistrate. (See alsoAshok Kumar Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan,2013 (2) SCC 67 and Narcotics Control Bureau vs.Sukh Dev Raj Sodhi, 2011 (6) SCC 392)24. Keeping in view the aforementioned principleof law laid down by this Court, we have to examinethe question arising in this case as to ......
-
Cri. Appeal No. 209 of 2012. Case: Schhida Nand and another Vs State of Himachal Pradesh. Himachal Pradesh High Court
...Jadeja v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 1 SCC 609: (AIR 2011 SC 77) and Narcotics Control Bureu v. Sukh Dev Raj Sodhi, (2011) 6 SCC 392: (AIR 2011 SC 1939). In Narcotics Control Bureu's case supra, the Supreme Court "3. Now, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the instant case,......
-
Criminal Application No. 362 in 82 of 2011, in N.D.P.S. Special Case No. 29 in NDPS Special R.A. No. 132 in NDPS Special C.R. No. 01 of 2011. Case: Fakir Ahmed Mohd. Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra. High Court of Bombay (India)
...duly complied. In support of this, he placed reliance upon Narcotics Central Bureau v. Sukh Dev Raj Sodhi, 2011 All MR Criminal 2356: (AIR 2011 SC 1939). From that judgment it appears that having informed accused of his right to be searched before the Magistrate or Gazetted Officer and afte......
-
CRL.A.--637/2013. Case: TARSEM SINGH Vs. DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE. High Court of Delhi (India)
...Officer or a Magistrate but this has not been done. To support this submission, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon AIR 2011 SC 1939 Narcotics Central Bureau Vs. Sukh Dev Raj Sodhi. There was no DD entry recorded regarding the secret information. This is a lacuna which is......
-
ARIF KHAN @ AGHA KHAN vs THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND. Supreme Court, 27-04-2018
...or a Magistrate. (See alsoAshok Kumar Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan,2013 (2) SCC 67 and Narcotics Control Bureau vs.Sukh Dev Raj Sodhi, 2011 (6) SCC 392)24. Keeping in view the aforementioned principleof law laid down by this Court, we have to examinethe question arising in this case as to ......
-
Cri. Appeal No. 209 of 2012. Case: Schhida Nand and another Vs State of Himachal Pradesh. Himachal Pradesh High Court
...Jadeja v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 1 SCC 609: (AIR 2011 SC 77) and Narcotics Control Bureu v. Sukh Dev Raj Sodhi, (2011) 6 SCC 392: (AIR 2011 SC 1939). In Narcotics Control Bureu's case supra, the Supreme Court "3. Now, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the instant case,......
-
Crl. A. 637/2013. Case: Tarsem Singh Vs Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. High Court of Delhi (India)
...Officer or a Magistrate but this has not been done. To support this submission, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon AIR 2011 SC 1939 Narcotics Central Bureau Vs. Sukh Dev Raj Sodhi. There was no DD entry recorded regarding the secret information. This is a lacuna which is......
-
Criminal Application No. 362 in 82 of 2011, in N.D.P.S. Special Case No. 29 in NDPS Special R.A. No. 132 in NDPS Special C.R. No. 01 of 2011. Case: Fakir Ahmed Mohd. Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra. High Court of Bombay (India)
...duly complied. In support of this, he placed reliance upon Narcotics Central Bureau v. Sukh Dev Raj Sodhi, 2011 All MR Criminal 2356: (AIR 2011 SC 1939). From that judgment it appears that having informed accused of his right to be searched before the Magistrate or Gazetted Officer and afte......