Man Singh and anr. Vs. State of M.P. - Court Judgment |
| Narcotics |
| Supreme Court of India |
| Sep-24-2008 |
| Criminal Appeal No. 1516 of 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 5051 of 2007) |
| Arijit Pasayat and; Mukundakam Sharma, JJ. |
| 2008(12)SCALE811; (2008)9SCC542; 2008(3)ShimLC266; 2008AIRSCW6413; 2008(6)Supreme751 |
| Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 2, 8, 18, 21, 29, 42 and 50 |
| Man Singh and anr. |
| State of M.P. |
| Ashok Kumar Sharma,; Sanjay Misra,; Avinash Kumar Jain a |
| C.D. Singh, ; Sunny Chowdhary, ; Vairagya Vardhan and ; |
| Appeal allowed |
| From the final Judgment and Order dated 18.4.2007 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in Crl. Appeal No. 1235 of 2003 |
.....- high court dismissed appeal - hence, present appeal - held, high court ought to have appointed another counsel through lac considering seriousness of case - judgment of high court set aside and matter remitted back to high court for fresh hearing - appeal allowed - code of criminal procedure, 1973 [c.a. no. 2/1974]. section 385: [dr.arijit pasayat & dr.mukundakam sharma, jj] appeal against conviction - procedure -appellants convicted of serious offence under n.d.p.s. act -advocate appointed to represent appellant absenting on date of hearing dismissal of appeal after hearing appeal in absence of appellants advocate - held, it is improper. high court ought to have required legal aid committee to appoint another counsel. - 3. learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the lawyer who was appointed by the legal aid committee did not appear, when the matter was called, for the reasons best known to him and the high court should not have dismissed the appeal without engaging another counsel or at least without appointing an amicus curiae......of the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances act, 1985 (hereinafter for short `the act') and in the alternative under section 8/29/18(b) of the act and under section 8/21(c) and in the alternative 8/29/21(c) and in the alternative 8/28/2(c) of the act and sentence of 20 years ri and fine of rupees two lakhs with a stipulation that in the event of default of payment of fine each of the accused/appellants would suffer ri for 5 years. it appears that when the matter was taken up by the high court learned advocate who was appointed through legal aid committee did not appear. learned single judge heard the matter with the assistance of the learned panel lawyer for the respondent- state.3. learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the lawyer who was appointed by the legal aid committee did not appear, when the matter was called, for the reasons best known to him and the high court should not have dismissed the appeal without engaging another counsel or at least without appointing an amicus curiae. learned counsel for the respondent-state on the other hand submitted that the high court has analysed the relevant evidence including the evidence of pws 9 and 10, who were the.....
Arijit Pasayat, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur, Bench at Indore, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant who had questioned his conviction for offence punishable under Section 8/18(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter for short `the Act') and in the alternative under Section 8/29/18(b) of the Act and under Section 8/21(c) and in the alternative 8/29/21(c) and in the alternative 8/28/2(c) of the Act and sentence of 20 years RI and fine of rupees two lakhs with a stipulation that in the event of default of payment of fine each of the accused/appellants would suffer RI for 5 years. It appears that when the matter was taken up by the High Court learned Advocate who was appointed through Legal Aid Committee did not appear. Learned Single Judge heard the matter with the assistance of the learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent- State.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the lawyer who was appointed by the Legal Aid Committee did not appear, when the matter was called, for the reasons best known to him and the High Court should not have dismissed the appeal without engaging another counsel or at least without appointing an Amicus Curiae. Learned Counsel for the respondent-State on the other hand submitted that the High Court has analysed the relevant evidence including the evidence of PWs 9 and 10, who were the official witnesses. It is pointed out that Sections 42 and 50 of the Act have no relevance because the alleged seizure took place in a public place and search was not of person.
4. We need not deal with the merits of the case as we find that the learned Counsel appointed by the Legal Aid Committee did not appear on the date fixed before the High Court. The High Court could have in such circumstances required the Legal Aid Committee to appoint another counsel. Considering the seriousness of the offence it would have been appropriate for the High Court to do so.
5. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the High Court for a fresh hearing.
6. The appeal is allowed.