K.P. Sadath and anr. Vs. State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Code Context
                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'K P Sadath and anr Vs State by Virajapet Town Police Station Kodagu District - Citation 370808 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '370808',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/50702/narcotic-drugs-and-psychotropic-substances-act-1985-complete-act">Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> - Sections 20, 37, 37(1) and 42; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 51 and 439 ',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Petition No. 2383 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr. Vs. State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
			'casenote' => ' - Section 16: [K.Ramanna,J] Suit for specific performance of agreement for sale of immovable property Time was essence of contract -Plaintiff purchaser had not taken any steps for furtherance of agreement for a period of 1 year  Held, It shows purchaser was not willing and ready to perform his contract. Also, no material was produced to prove that defendant sought to extend stipulated time for one year to execute regular sale deed. Breach of contract committed by purchaser. Plaintiff is not entitled to relief. 

Section 22: [K.Ramanna,J] Refund earnest money  Agreement for sale of immovable property - Breach of contract by purchaser  Held, Defendant-seller is not entitled to forfeit earnest money in the absence of forfeiture clause in agreement. However earnest money was allowed to be refunded @ 6% interest.  -  Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law. --(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-(a) .(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.M. Chandrashekar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'N.P. Sinigri, State Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-09-26',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Mohamed Anwar, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Mohamed Anwar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard both sides.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Both these petitioners, who are arraigned as A. 2 and A. 1 respectively, in Crime No. 109 of 2001 of the respondent-Police Station for the offence under Section 20(b) of the <a href="/act/50702/narcotic-drugs-and-psychotropic-substances-act-1985-complete-act">Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> ('N.D.P.S. Act'), have approached this Court with their petition under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. when their simitar application for bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 9-7-2001.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The prosecution case is that, on 22-6-2001, at about 10.30 a.m., at Meenupete of Virajapet City in Kodagu District, both the petitioners were found present when the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Virajapet appeared there with his party on receiving credible information that petitioners were in possession of ganja. Then the person of A. 1, who is petitioner 2 herein, was searched. He was found in possession of 12 packets of ganja weighing 5 grams each, totalling 60 grams, while A2, petitioner 1 herein, was found in possession of 11 packets of ganja weighing 50 grams each totalling 550 grams. Then this contraband came to be duly seized by the Deputy Superintendent of Police under a panchanama in the presence of panchas and the said case was booked against them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned Counsel for petitioners initially contended that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act being the imprisonment extending upto 5 years, the rigours of the provisions of Section 37(1)(b) in the matter of bail will not be attracted and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. In support of this contention, a Single Bench decision of this Court in A.V. Dharmasingh v. State of Karnataka, was cited by him. The Court finds that in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar and Anr., the proposition enunciated by this Court in the case of A V. Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act envisages certain restrictions in the matter of grant of bail to an accused who is allegedly involved in commission of any offence under the Act. Its material portion is extracted below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) .....</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. As indicated, the offence under Section 20(b) alleged against petitioners is made punishable under Sub-clause (i) of Section 20(b) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000/-. Interpreting the words 'punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act' occurring in Sub-clause (ii) of Section 37(1) of the Act asexcluding the offences which are made punishable under the Act with imprisonment extending upto five years, the accused in the case of Sambhu Sonkar, supra, who were challenged for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Act, had been granted bail by the High Court of Calcutta. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the aforestated provisions of the Act are attracted to the offence punishable under Section 20(b) and, therefore, the view taken by Calcutta High Court was not legally correct. Thus, the question which arose for consideration of the Supreme Court in that case was: 'The limited question involved in this appeal is whether the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the Narcomic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act') would be applicable in a case where offence is punishable under Section 20(b)(i) for 'possessing gania'. Referring to its earlier decision in Maktool Singh v. State of Punjab, the said question was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the decision of this Court in A.V. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Nextly it was contended by Mr. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for petitioners, that as the total quantity of ganja that was found in possession of A. 1 being 60 grams only, it constituted 'small quantity' within the meaning of Section 27 of the N.D.P.S. Act, for which it provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. But then, it is not in dispute, as has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge in his said order that this accused is involved in another offence under the Act which is registered against him by the concerned authority in Special Case (NDPS) No. 3 of 1998. Therefore, he is disentitled to the remedy of bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Mr. Chandrashekar further pressed a point for my consideration that, as indicated in the seizure panchanama, the said Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted search of both petitioners did not inform either of them that, in law, they had the right to get their persons searched by a Magistrate also, which was an imperative requirement of law under Section 42 of the Act. On this count, Mr. Chandrashekar maintained that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. He proposed to rely on a decision of Delhi High Court in Vidyawati v. State. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act. Therefore, this point, I find is of little avail to them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002CriLJ101; ILR2001KAR5205; 2002(2)KarLJ76',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
			'sub' => 'Criminal;Narcotics',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '370808',
		(int) 1 => 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'K P Sadath and anr Vs State by Virajapet Town Police Station Kodagu District - Citation 370808 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '370808',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/50702/narcotic-drugs-and-psychotropic-substances-act-1985-complete-act">Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> - Sections 20, 37, 37(1) and 42; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 51 and 439 ',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Petition No. 2383 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr. Vs. State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
		'casenote' => ' - Section 16: [K.Ramanna,J] Suit for specific performance of agreement for sale of immovable property Time was essence of contract -Plaintiff purchaser had not taken any steps for furtherance of agreement for a period of 1 year  Held, It shows purchaser was not willing and ready to perform his contract. Also, no material was produced to prove that defendant sought to extend stipulated time for one year to execute regular sale deed. Breach of contract committed by purchaser. Plaintiff is not entitled to relief. 

Section 22: [K.Ramanna,J] Refund earnest money  Agreement for sale of immovable property - Breach of contract by purchaser  Held, Defendant-seller is not entitled to forfeit earnest money in the absence of forfeiture clause in agreement. However earnest money was allowed to be refunded @ 6% interest.  -  Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law. --(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-(a) .(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.M. Chandrashekar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'N.P. Sinigri, State Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-09-26',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Mohamed Anwar, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Mohamed Anwar, J.</p><p>1. Heard both sides.</p><p>2. Both these petitioners, who are arraigned as A. 2 and A. 1 respectively, in Crime No. 109 of 2001 of the respondent-Police Station for the offence under Section 20(b) of the <a>Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> ('N.D.P.S. Act'), have approached this Court with their petition under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. when their simitar application for bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 9-7-2001.</p><p>3. The prosecution case is that, on 22-6-2001, at about 10.30 a.m., at Meenupete of Virajapet City in Kodagu District, both the petitioners were found present when the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Virajapet appeared there with his party on receiving credible information that petitioners were in possession of ganja. Then the person of A. 1, who is petitioner 2 herein, was searched. He was found in possession of 12 packets of ganja weighing 5 grams each, totalling 60 grams, while A2, petitioner 1 herein, was found in possession of 11 packets of ganja weighing 50 grams each totalling 550 grams. Then this contraband came to be duly seized by the Deputy Superintendent of Police under a panchanama in the presence of panchas and the said case was booked against them.</p><p>4. Learned Counsel for petitioners initially contended that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act being the imprisonment extending upto 5 years, the rigours of the provisions of Section 37(1)(b) in the matter of bail will not be attracted and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. In support of this contention, a Single Bench decision of this Court in A.V. Dharmasingh v. State of Karnataka, was cited by him. The Court finds that in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar and Anr., the proposition enunciated by this Court in the case of A V. Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law.</p><p>5. Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act envisages certain restrictions in the matter of grant of bail to an accused who is allegedly involved in commission of any offence under the Act. Its material portion is extracted below:</p><p>'37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-</p><p> (a) .....</p><p> (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-</p><p> (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and</p><p> (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.</p><p> (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail'. </p><p>6. As indicated, the offence under Section 20(b) alleged against petitioners is made punishable under Sub-clause (i) of Section 20(b) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000/-. Interpreting the words 'punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act' occurring in Sub-clause (ii) of Section 37(1) of the Act asexcluding the offences which are made punishable under the Act with imprisonment extending upto five years, the accused in the case of Sambhu Sonkar, supra, who were challenged for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Act, had been granted bail by the High Court of Calcutta. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the aforestated provisions of the Act are attracted to the offence punishable under Section 20(b) and, therefore, the view taken by Calcutta High Court was not legally correct. Thus, the question which arose for consideration of the Supreme Court in that case was: 'The limited question involved in this appeal is whether the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the Narcomic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act') would be applicable in a case where offence is punishable under Section 20(b)(i) for 'possessing gania'. Referring to its earlier decision in Maktool Singh v. State of Punjab, the said question was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the decision of this Court in A.V. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law.</p><p>7. Nextly it was contended by Mr. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for petitioners, that as the total quantity of ganja that was found in possession of A. 1 being 60 grams only, it constituted 'small quantity' within the meaning of Section 27 of the N.D.P.S. Act, for which it provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. But then, it is not in dispute, as has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge in his said order that this accused is involved in another offence under the Act which is registered against him by the concerned authority in Special Case (NDPS) No. 3 of 1998. Therefore, he is disentitled to the remedy of bail.</p><p>8. Mr. Chandrashekar further pressed a point for my consideration that, as indicated in the seizure panchanama, the said Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted search of both petitioners did not inform either of them that, in law, they had the right to get their persons searched by a Magistrate also, which was an imperative requirement of law under Section 42 of the Act. On this count, Mr. Chandrashekar maintained that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. He proposed to rely on a decision of Delhi High Court in Vidyawati v. State. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act. Therefore, this point, I find is of little avail to them.</p><p>9. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002CriLJ101; ILR2001KAR5205; 2002(2)KarLJ76',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
		'sub' => 'Criminal;Narcotics',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '370808',
	(int) 1 => 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/370808/k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Code Context
                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'K P Sadath and anr Vs State by Virajapet Town Police Station Kodagu District - Citation 370808 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '370808',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/50702/narcotic-drugs-and-psychotropic-substances-act-1985-complete-act">Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> - Sections 20, 37, 37(1) and 42; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 51 and 439 ',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Petition No. 2383 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr. Vs. State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
			'casenote' => ' - Section 16: [K.Ramanna,J] Suit for specific performance of agreement for sale of immovable property Time was essence of contract -Plaintiff purchaser had not taken any steps for furtherance of agreement for a period of 1 year  Held, It shows purchaser was not willing and ready to perform his contract. Also, no material was produced to prove that defendant sought to extend stipulated time for one year to execute regular sale deed. Breach of contract committed by purchaser. Plaintiff is not entitled to relief. 

Section 22: [K.Ramanna,J] Refund earnest money  Agreement for sale of immovable property - Breach of contract by purchaser  Held, Defendant-seller is not entitled to forfeit earnest money in the absence of forfeiture clause in agreement. However earnest money was allowed to be refunded @ 6% interest.  -  Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law. --(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-(a) .(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.M. Chandrashekar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'N.P. Sinigri, State Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-09-26',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Mohamed Anwar, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Mohamed Anwar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard both sides.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Both these petitioners, who are arraigned as A. 2 and A. 1 respectively, in Crime No. 109 of 2001 of the respondent-Police Station for the offence under Section 20(b) of the <a href="/act/50702/narcotic-drugs-and-psychotropic-substances-act-1985-complete-act">Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> ('N.D.P.S. Act'), have approached this Court with their petition under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. when their simitar application for bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 9-7-2001.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The prosecution case is that, on 22-6-2001, at about 10.30 a.m., at Meenupete of Virajapet City in Kodagu District, both the petitioners were found present when the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Virajapet appeared there with his party on receiving credible information that petitioners were in possession of ganja. Then the person of A. 1, who is petitioner 2 herein, was searched. He was found in possession of 12 packets of ganja weighing 5 grams each, totalling 60 grams, while A2, petitioner 1 herein, was found in possession of 11 packets of ganja weighing 50 grams each totalling 550 grams. Then this contraband came to be duly seized by the Deputy Superintendent of Police under a panchanama in the presence of panchas and the said case was booked against them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned Counsel for petitioners initially contended that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act being the imprisonment extending upto 5 years, the rigours of the provisions of Section 37(1)(b) in the matter of bail will not be attracted and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. In support of this contention, a Single Bench decision of this Court in A.V. Dharmasingh v. State of Karnataka, was cited by him. The Court finds that in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar and Anr., the proposition enunciated by this Court in the case of A V. Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act envisages certain restrictions in the matter of grant of bail to an accused who is allegedly involved in commission of any offence under the Act. Its material portion is extracted below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) .....</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. As indicated, the offence under Section 20(b) alleged against petitioners is made punishable under Sub-clause (i) of Section 20(b) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000/-. Interpreting the words 'punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act' occurring in Sub-clause (ii) of Section 37(1) of the Act asexcluding the offences which are made punishable under the Act with imprisonment extending upto five years, the accused in the case of Sambhu Sonkar, supra, who were challenged for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Act, had been granted bail by the High Court of Calcutta. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the aforestated provisions of the Act are attracted to the offence punishable under Section 20(b) and, therefore, the view taken by Calcutta High Court was not legally correct. Thus, the question which arose for consideration of the Supreme Court in that case was: 'The limited question involved in this appeal is whether the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the Narcomic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act') would be applicable in a case where offence is punishable under Section 20(b)(i) for 'possessing gania'. Referring to its earlier decision in Maktool Singh v. State of Punjab, the said question was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the decision of this Court in A.V. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Nextly it was contended by Mr. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for petitioners, that as the total quantity of ganja that was found in possession of A. 1 being 60 grams only, it constituted 'small quantity' within the meaning of Section 27 of the N.D.P.S. Act, for which it provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. But then, it is not in dispute, as has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge in his said order that this accused is involved in another offence under the Act which is registered against him by the concerned authority in Special Case (NDPS) No. 3 of 1998. Therefore, he is disentitled to the remedy of bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Mr. Chandrashekar further pressed a point for my consideration that, as indicated in the seizure panchanama, the said Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted search of both petitioners did not inform either of them that, in law, they had the right to get their persons searched by a Magistrate also, which was an imperative requirement of law under Section 42 of the Act. On this count, Mr. Chandrashekar maintained that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. He proposed to rely on a decision of Delhi High Court in Vidyawati v. State. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act. Therefore, this point, I find is of little avail to them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002CriLJ101; ILR2001KAR5205; 2002(2)KarLJ76',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
			'sub' => 'Criminal;Narcotics',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '370808',
		(int) 1 => 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'K P Sadath and anr Vs State by Virajapet Town Police Station Kodagu District - Citation 370808 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '370808',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/50702/narcotic-drugs-and-psychotropic-substances-act-1985-complete-act">Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> - Sections 20, 37, 37(1) and 42; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 51 and 439 ',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Petition No. 2383 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr. Vs. State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
		'casenote' => ' - Section 16: [K.Ramanna,J] Suit for specific performance of agreement for sale of immovable property Time was essence of contract -Plaintiff purchaser had not taken any steps for furtherance of agreement for a period of 1 year  Held, It shows purchaser was not willing and ready to perform his contract. Also, no material was produced to prove that defendant sought to extend stipulated time for one year to execute regular sale deed. Breach of contract committed by purchaser. Plaintiff is not entitled to relief. 

Section 22: [K.Ramanna,J] Refund earnest money  Agreement for sale of immovable property - Breach of contract by purchaser  Held, Defendant-seller is not entitled to forfeit earnest money in the absence of forfeiture clause in agreement. However earnest money was allowed to be refunded @ 6% interest.  -  Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law. --(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-(a) .(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.M. Chandrashekar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'N.P. Sinigri, State Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-09-26',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Mohamed Anwar, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Mohamed Anwar, J.</p><p>1. Heard both sides.</p><p>2. Both these petitioners, who are arraigned as A. 2 and A. 1 respectively, in Crime No. 109 of 2001 of the respondent-Police Station for the offence under Section 20(b) of the <a>Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> ('N.D.P.S. Act'), have approached this Court with their petition under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. when their simitar application for bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 9-7-2001.</p><p>3. The prosecution case is that, on 22-6-2001, at about 10.30 a.m., at Meenupete of Virajapet City in Kodagu District, both the petitioners were found present when the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Virajapet appeared there with his party on receiving credible information that petitioners were in possession of ganja. Then the person of A. 1, who is petitioner 2 herein, was searched. He was found in possession of 12 packets of ganja weighing 5 grams each, totalling 60 grams, while A2, petitioner 1 herein, was found in possession of 11 packets of ganja weighing 50 grams each totalling 550 grams. Then this contraband came to be duly seized by the Deputy Superintendent of Police under a panchanama in the presence of panchas and the said case was booked against them.</p><p>4. Learned Counsel for petitioners initially contended that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act being the imprisonment extending upto 5 years, the rigours of the provisions of Section 37(1)(b) in the matter of bail will not be attracted and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. In support of this contention, a Single Bench decision of this Court in A.V. Dharmasingh v. State of Karnataka, was cited by him. The Court finds that in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar and Anr., the proposition enunciated by this Court in the case of A V. Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law.</p><p>5. Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act envisages certain restrictions in the matter of grant of bail to an accused who is allegedly involved in commission of any offence under the Act. Its material portion is extracted below:</p><p>'37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-</p><p> (a) .....</p><p> (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-</p><p> (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and</p><p> (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.</p><p> (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail'. </p><p>6. As indicated, the offence under Section 20(b) alleged against petitioners is made punishable under Sub-clause (i) of Section 20(b) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000/-. Interpreting the words 'punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act' occurring in Sub-clause (ii) of Section 37(1) of the Act asexcluding the offences which are made punishable under the Act with imprisonment extending upto five years, the accused in the case of Sambhu Sonkar, supra, who were challenged for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Act, had been granted bail by the High Court of Calcutta. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the aforestated provisions of the Act are attracted to the offence punishable under Section 20(b) and, therefore, the view taken by Calcutta High Court was not legally correct. Thus, the question which arose for consideration of the Supreme Court in that case was: 'The limited question involved in this appeal is whether the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the Narcomic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act') would be applicable in a case where offence is punishable under Section 20(b)(i) for 'possessing gania'. Referring to its earlier decision in Maktool Singh v. State of Punjab, the said question was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the decision of this Court in A.V. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law.</p><p>7. Nextly it was contended by Mr. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for petitioners, that as the total quantity of ganja that was found in possession of A. 1 being 60 grams only, it constituted 'small quantity' within the meaning of Section 27 of the N.D.P.S. Act, for which it provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. But then, it is not in dispute, as has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge in his said order that this accused is involved in another offence under the Act which is registered against him by the concerned authority in Special Case (NDPS) No. 3 of 1998. Therefore, he is disentitled to the remedy of bail.</p><p>8. Mr. Chandrashekar further pressed a point for my consideration that, as indicated in the seizure panchanama, the said Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted search of both petitioners did not inform either of them that, in law, they had the right to get their persons searched by a Magistrate also, which was an imperative requirement of law under Section 42 of the Act. On this count, Mr. Chandrashekar maintained that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. He proposed to rely on a decision of Delhi High Court in Vidyawati v. State. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act. Therefore, this point, I find is of little avail to them.</p><p>9. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002CriLJ101; ILR2001KAR5205; 2002(2)KarLJ76',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
		'sub' => 'Criminal;Narcotics',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '370808',
	(int) 1 => 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/370808/k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

- section 16: [k.ramanna,j] suit for specific performance of agreement for sale of immovable property time was essence of contract -plaintiff purchaser had not taken any steps for furtherance of agreement for a period of 1 year held, it shows purchaser was not willing and ready to perform his contract. also, no material was produced to prove that defendant sought to extend stipulated time for one year to execute regular sale deed. breach of contract committed by purchaser. plaintiff is not entitled to relief. section 22: [k.ramanna,j] refund earnest money agreement for sale of immovable property - breach of contract by purchaser held, defendant-seller is not entitled to forfeit earnest money in the absence of forfeiture clause in agreement. however earnest money was allowed to be.....

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'K P Sadath and anr Vs State by Virajapet Town Police Station Kodagu District - Citation 370808 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '370808',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/50702/narcotic-drugs-and-psychotropic-substances-act-1985-complete-act">Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> - Sections 20, 37, 37(1) and 42; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 51 and 439 ',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Petition No. 2383 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr. Vs. State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
			'casenote' => ' - Section 16: [K.Ramanna,J] Suit for specific performance of agreement for sale of immovable property Time was essence of contract -Plaintiff purchaser had not taken any steps for furtherance of agreement for a period of 1 year  Held, It shows purchaser was not willing and ready to perform his contract. Also, no material was produced to prove that defendant sought to extend stipulated time for one year to execute regular sale deed. Breach of contract committed by purchaser. Plaintiff is not entitled to relief. 

Section 22: [K.Ramanna,J] Refund earnest money  Agreement for sale of immovable property - Breach of contract by purchaser  Held, Defendant-seller is not entitled to forfeit earnest money in the absence of forfeiture clause in agreement. However earnest money was allowed to be refunded @ 6% interest.  -  Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law. --(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-(a) .(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.M. Chandrashekar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'N.P. Sinigri, State Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-09-26',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Mohamed Anwar, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Mohamed Anwar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard both sides.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Both these petitioners, who are arraigned as A. 2 and A. 1 respectively, in Crime No. 109 of 2001 of the respondent-Police Station for the offence under Section 20(b) of the <a href="/act/50702/narcotic-drugs-and-psychotropic-substances-act-1985-complete-act">Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> ('N.D.P.S. Act'), have approached this Court with their petition under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. when their simitar application for bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 9-7-2001.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The prosecution case is that, on 22-6-2001, at about 10.30 a.m., at Meenupete of Virajapet City in Kodagu District, both the petitioners were found present when the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Virajapet appeared there with his party on receiving credible information that petitioners were in possession of ganja. Then the person of A. 1, who is petitioner 2 herein, was searched. He was found in possession of 12 packets of ganja weighing 5 grams each, totalling 60 grams, while A2, petitioner 1 herein, was found in possession of 11 packets of ganja weighing 50 grams each totalling 550 grams. Then this contraband came to be duly seized by the Deputy Superintendent of Police under a panchanama in the presence of panchas and the said case was booked against them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned Counsel for petitioners initially contended that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act being the imprisonment extending upto 5 years, the rigours of the provisions of Section 37(1)(b) in the matter of bail will not be attracted and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. In support of this contention, a Single Bench decision of this Court in A.V. Dharmasingh v. State of Karnataka, was cited by him. The Court finds that in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar and Anr., the proposition enunciated by this Court in the case of A V. Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act envisages certain restrictions in the matter of grant of bail to an accused who is allegedly involved in commission of any offence under the Act. Its material portion is extracted below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) .....</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. As indicated, the offence under Section 20(b) alleged against petitioners is made punishable under Sub-clause (i) of Section 20(b) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000/-. Interpreting the words 'punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act' occurring in Sub-clause (ii) of Section 37(1) of the Act asexcluding the offences which are made punishable under the Act with imprisonment extending upto five years, the accused in the case of Sambhu Sonkar, supra, who were challenged for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Act, had been granted bail by the High Court of Calcutta. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the aforestated provisions of the Act are attracted to the offence punishable under Section 20(b) and, therefore, the view taken by Calcutta High Court was not legally correct. Thus, the question which arose for consideration of the Supreme Court in that case was: 'The limited question involved in this appeal is whether the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the Narcomic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act') would be applicable in a case where offence is punishable under Section 20(b)(i) for 'possessing gania'. Referring to its earlier decision in Maktool Singh v. State of Punjab, the said question was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the decision of this Court in A.V. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Nextly it was contended by Mr. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for petitioners, that as the total quantity of ganja that was found in possession of A. 1 being 60 grams only, it constituted 'small quantity' within the meaning of Section 27 of the N.D.P.S. Act, for which it provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. But then, it is not in dispute, as has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge in his said order that this accused is involved in another offence under the Act which is registered against him by the concerned authority in Special Case (NDPS) No. 3 of 1998. Therefore, he is disentitled to the remedy of bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Mr. Chandrashekar further pressed a point for my consideration that, as indicated in the seizure panchanama, the said Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted search of both petitioners did not inform either of them that, in law, they had the right to get their persons searched by a Magistrate also, which was an imperative requirement of law under Section 42 of the Act. On this count, Mr. Chandrashekar maintained that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. He proposed to rely on a decision of Delhi High Court in Vidyawati v. State. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act. Therefore, this point, I find is of little avail to them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002CriLJ101; ILR2001KAR5205; 2002(2)KarLJ76',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
			'sub' => 'Criminal;Narcotics',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '370808',
		(int) 1 => 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'K P Sadath and anr Vs State by Virajapet Town Police Station Kodagu District - Citation 370808 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '370808',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/50702/narcotic-drugs-and-psychotropic-substances-act-1985-complete-act">Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> - Sections 20, 37, 37(1) and 42; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 51 and 439 ',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Petition No. 2383 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr. Vs. State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
		'casenote' => ' - Section 16: [K.Ramanna,J] Suit for specific performance of agreement for sale of immovable property Time was essence of contract -Plaintiff purchaser had not taken any steps for furtherance of agreement for a period of 1 year  Held, It shows purchaser was not willing and ready to perform his contract. Also, no material was produced to prove that defendant sought to extend stipulated time for one year to execute regular sale deed. Breach of contract committed by purchaser. Plaintiff is not entitled to relief. 

Section 22: [K.Ramanna,J] Refund earnest money  Agreement for sale of immovable property - Breach of contract by purchaser  Held, Defendant-seller is not entitled to forfeit earnest money in the absence of forfeiture clause in agreement. However earnest money was allowed to be refunded @ 6% interest.  -  Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law. --(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-(a) .(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.M. Chandrashekar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'N.P. Sinigri, State Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-09-26',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Mohamed Anwar, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Mohamed Anwar, J.</p><p>1. Heard both sides.</p><p>2. Both these petitioners, who are arraigned as A. 2 and A. 1 respectively, in Crime No. 109 of 2001 of the respondent-Police Station for the offence under Section 20(b) of the <a>Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> ('N.D.P.S. Act'), have approached this Court with their petition under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. when their simitar application for bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 9-7-2001.</p><p>3. The prosecution case is that, on 22-6-2001, at about 10.30 a.m., at Meenupete of Virajapet City in Kodagu District, both the petitioners were found present when the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Virajapet appeared there with his party on receiving credible information that petitioners were in possession of ganja. Then the person of A. 1, who is petitioner 2 herein, was searched. He was found in possession of 12 packets of ganja weighing 5 grams each, totalling 60 grams, while A2, petitioner 1 herein, was found in possession of 11 packets of ganja weighing 50 grams each totalling 550 grams. Then this contraband came to be duly seized by the Deputy Superintendent of Police under a panchanama in the presence of panchas and the said case was booked against them.</p><p>4. Learned Counsel for petitioners initially contended that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act being the imprisonment extending upto 5 years, the rigours of the provisions of Section 37(1)(b) in the matter of bail will not be attracted and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. In support of this contention, a Single Bench decision of this Court in A.V. Dharmasingh v. State of Karnataka, was cited by him. The Court finds that in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar and Anr., the proposition enunciated by this Court in the case of A V. Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law.</p><p>5. Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act envisages certain restrictions in the matter of grant of bail to an accused who is allegedly involved in commission of any offence under the Act. Its material portion is extracted below:</p><p>'37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-</p><p> (a) .....</p><p> (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-</p><p> (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and</p><p> (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.</p><p> (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail'. </p><p>6. As indicated, the offence under Section 20(b) alleged against petitioners is made punishable under Sub-clause (i) of Section 20(b) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000/-. Interpreting the words 'punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act' occurring in Sub-clause (ii) of Section 37(1) of the Act asexcluding the offences which are made punishable under the Act with imprisonment extending upto five years, the accused in the case of Sambhu Sonkar, supra, who were challenged for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Act, had been granted bail by the High Court of Calcutta. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the aforestated provisions of the Act are attracted to the offence punishable under Section 20(b) and, therefore, the view taken by Calcutta High Court was not legally correct. Thus, the question which arose for consideration of the Supreme Court in that case was: 'The limited question involved in this appeal is whether the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the Narcomic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act') would be applicable in a case where offence is punishable under Section 20(b)(i) for 'possessing gania'. Referring to its earlier decision in Maktool Singh v. State of Punjab, the said question was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the decision of this Court in A.V. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law.</p><p>7. Nextly it was contended by Mr. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for petitioners, that as the total quantity of ganja that was found in possession of A. 1 being 60 grams only, it constituted 'small quantity' within the meaning of Section 27 of the N.D.P.S. Act, for which it provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. But then, it is not in dispute, as has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge in his said order that this accused is involved in another offence under the Act which is registered against him by the concerned authority in Special Case (NDPS) No. 3 of 1998. Therefore, he is disentitled to the remedy of bail.</p><p>8. Mr. Chandrashekar further pressed a point for my consideration that, as indicated in the seizure panchanama, the said Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted search of both petitioners did not inform either of them that, in law, they had the right to get their persons searched by a Magistrate also, which was an imperative requirement of law under Section 42 of the Act. On this count, Mr. Chandrashekar maintained that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. He proposed to rely on a decision of Delhi High Court in Vidyawati v. State. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act. Therefore, this point, I find is of little avail to them.</p><p>9. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002CriLJ101; ILR2001KAR5205; 2002(2)KarLJ76',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
		'sub' => 'Criminal;Narcotics',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '370808',
	(int) 1 => 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/370808/k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'K P Sadath and anr Vs State by Virajapet Town Police Station Kodagu District - Citation 370808 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '370808',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/50702/narcotic-drugs-and-psychotropic-substances-act-1985-complete-act">Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> - Sections 20, 37, 37(1) and 42; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 51 and 439 ',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Petition No. 2383 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr. Vs. State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
			'casenote' => ' - Section 16: [K.Ramanna,J] Suit for specific performance of agreement for sale of immovable property Time was essence of contract -Plaintiff purchaser had not taken any steps for furtherance of agreement for a period of 1 year  Held, It shows purchaser was not willing and ready to perform his contract. Also, no material was produced to prove that defendant sought to extend stipulated time for one year to execute regular sale deed. Breach of contract committed by purchaser. Plaintiff is not entitled to relief. 

Section 22: [K.Ramanna,J] Refund earnest money  Agreement for sale of immovable property - Breach of contract by purchaser  Held, Defendant-seller is not entitled to forfeit earnest money in the absence of forfeiture clause in agreement. However earnest money was allowed to be refunded @ 6% interest.  -  Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law. --(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-(a) .(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.M. Chandrashekar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'N.P. Sinigri, State Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-09-26',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Mohamed Anwar, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Mohamed Anwar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard both sides.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Both these petitioners, who are arraigned as A. 2 and A. 1 respectively, in Crime No. 109 of 2001 of the respondent-Police Station for the offence under Section 20(b) of the <a href="/act/50702/narcotic-drugs-and-psychotropic-substances-act-1985-complete-act">Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> ('N.D.P.S. Act'), have approached this Court with their petition under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. when their simitar application for bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 9-7-2001.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The prosecution case is that, on 22-6-2001, at about 10.30 a.m., at Meenupete of Virajapet City in Kodagu District, both the petitioners were found present when the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Virajapet appeared there with his party on receiving credible information that petitioners were in possession of ganja. Then the person of A. 1, who is petitioner 2 herein, was searched. He was found in possession of 12 packets of ganja weighing 5 grams each, totalling 60 grams, while A2, petitioner 1 herein, was found in possession of 11 packets of ganja weighing 50 grams each totalling 550 grams. Then this contraband came to be duly seized by the Deputy Superintendent of Police under a panchanama in the presence of panchas and the said case was booked against them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned Counsel for petitioners initially contended that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act being the imprisonment extending upto 5 years, the rigours of the provisions of Section 37(1)(b) in the matter of bail will not be attracted and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. In support of this contention, a Single Bench decision of this Court in A.V. Dharmasingh v. State of Karnataka, was cited by him. The Court finds that in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar and Anr., the proposition enunciated by this Court in the case of A V. Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act envisages certain restrictions in the matter of grant of bail to an accused who is allegedly involved in commission of any offence under the Act. Its material portion is extracted below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) .....</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. As indicated, the offence under Section 20(b) alleged against petitioners is made punishable under Sub-clause (i) of Section 20(b) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000/-. Interpreting the words 'punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act' occurring in Sub-clause (ii) of Section 37(1) of the Act asexcluding the offences which are made punishable under the Act with imprisonment extending upto five years, the accused in the case of Sambhu Sonkar, supra, who were challenged for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Act, had been granted bail by the High Court of Calcutta. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the aforestated provisions of the Act are attracted to the offence punishable under Section 20(b) and, therefore, the view taken by Calcutta High Court was not legally correct. Thus, the question which arose for consideration of the Supreme Court in that case was: 'The limited question involved in this appeal is whether the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the Narcomic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act') would be applicable in a case where offence is punishable under Section 20(b)(i) for 'possessing gania'. Referring to its earlier decision in Maktool Singh v. State of Punjab, the said question was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the decision of this Court in A.V. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Nextly it was contended by Mr. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for petitioners, that as the total quantity of ganja that was found in possession of A. 1 being 60 grams only, it constituted 'small quantity' within the meaning of Section 27 of the N.D.P.S. Act, for which it provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. But then, it is not in dispute, as has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge in his said order that this accused is involved in another offence under the Act which is registered against him by the concerned authority in Special Case (NDPS) No. 3 of 1998. Therefore, he is disentitled to the remedy of bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Mr. Chandrashekar further pressed a point for my consideration that, as indicated in the seizure panchanama, the said Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted search of both petitioners did not inform either of them that, in law, they had the right to get their persons searched by a Magistrate also, which was an imperative requirement of law under Section 42 of the Act. On this count, Mr. Chandrashekar maintained that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. He proposed to rely on a decision of Delhi High Court in Vidyawati v. State. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act. Therefore, this point, I find is of little avail to them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002CriLJ101; ILR2001KAR5205; 2002(2)KarLJ76',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
			'sub' => 'Criminal;Narcotics',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '370808',
		(int) 1 => 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'K P Sadath and anr Vs State by Virajapet Town Police Station Kodagu District - Citation 370808 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '370808',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/50702/narcotic-drugs-and-psychotropic-substances-act-1985-complete-act">Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> - Sections 20, 37, 37(1) and 42; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 51 and 439 ',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Petition No. 2383 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr. Vs. State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
		'casenote' => ' - Section 16: [K.Ramanna,J] Suit for specific performance of agreement for sale of immovable property Time was essence of contract -Plaintiff purchaser had not taken any steps for furtherance of agreement for a period of 1 year  Held, It shows purchaser was not willing and ready to perform his contract. Also, no material was produced to prove that defendant sought to extend stipulated time for one year to execute regular sale deed. Breach of contract committed by purchaser. Plaintiff is not entitled to relief. 

Section 22: [K.Ramanna,J] Refund earnest money  Agreement for sale of immovable property - Breach of contract by purchaser  Held, Defendant-seller is not entitled to forfeit earnest money in the absence of forfeiture clause in agreement. However earnest money was allowed to be refunded @ 6% interest.  -  Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law. --(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-(a) .(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.M. Chandrashekar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'N.P. Sinigri, State Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-09-26',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Mohamed Anwar, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Mohamed Anwar, J.</p><p>1. Heard both sides.</p><p>2. Both these petitioners, who are arraigned as A. 2 and A. 1 respectively, in Crime No. 109 of 2001 of the respondent-Police Station for the offence under Section 20(b) of the <a>Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> ('N.D.P.S. Act'), have approached this Court with their petition under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. when their simitar application for bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 9-7-2001.</p><p>3. The prosecution case is that, on 22-6-2001, at about 10.30 a.m., at Meenupete of Virajapet City in Kodagu District, both the petitioners were found present when the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Virajapet appeared there with his party on receiving credible information that petitioners were in possession of ganja. Then the person of A. 1, who is petitioner 2 herein, was searched. He was found in possession of 12 packets of ganja weighing 5 grams each, totalling 60 grams, while A2, petitioner 1 herein, was found in possession of 11 packets of ganja weighing 50 grams each totalling 550 grams. Then this contraband came to be duly seized by the Deputy Superintendent of Police under a panchanama in the presence of panchas and the said case was booked against them.</p><p>4. Learned Counsel for petitioners initially contended that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act being the imprisonment extending upto 5 years, the rigours of the provisions of Section 37(1)(b) in the matter of bail will not be attracted and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. In support of this contention, a Single Bench decision of this Court in A.V. Dharmasingh v. State of Karnataka, was cited by him. The Court finds that in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar and Anr., the proposition enunciated by this Court in the case of A V. Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law.</p><p>5. Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act envisages certain restrictions in the matter of grant of bail to an accused who is allegedly involved in commission of any offence under the Act. Its material portion is extracted below:</p><p>'37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-</p><p> (a) .....</p><p> (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-</p><p> (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and</p><p> (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.</p><p> (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail'. </p><p>6. As indicated, the offence under Section 20(b) alleged against petitioners is made punishable under Sub-clause (i) of Section 20(b) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000/-. Interpreting the words 'punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act' occurring in Sub-clause (ii) of Section 37(1) of the Act asexcluding the offences which are made punishable under the Act with imprisonment extending upto five years, the accused in the case of Sambhu Sonkar, supra, who were challenged for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Act, had been granted bail by the High Court of Calcutta. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the aforestated provisions of the Act are attracted to the offence punishable under Section 20(b) and, therefore, the view taken by Calcutta High Court was not legally correct. Thus, the question which arose for consideration of the Supreme Court in that case was: 'The limited question involved in this appeal is whether the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the Narcomic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act') would be applicable in a case where offence is punishable under Section 20(b)(i) for 'possessing gania'. Referring to its earlier decision in Maktool Singh v. State of Punjab, the said question was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the decision of this Court in A.V. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law.</p><p>7. Nextly it was contended by Mr. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for petitioners, that as the total quantity of ganja that was found in possession of A. 1 being 60 grams only, it constituted 'small quantity' within the meaning of Section 27 of the N.D.P.S. Act, for which it provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. But then, it is not in dispute, as has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge in his said order that this accused is involved in another offence under the Act which is registered against him by the concerned authority in Special Case (NDPS) No. 3 of 1998. Therefore, he is disentitled to the remedy of bail.</p><p>8. Mr. Chandrashekar further pressed a point for my consideration that, as indicated in the seizure panchanama, the said Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted search of both petitioners did not inform either of them that, in law, they had the right to get their persons searched by a Magistrate also, which was an imperative requirement of law under Section 42 of the Act. On this count, Mr. Chandrashekar maintained that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. He proposed to rely on a decision of Delhi High Court in Vidyawati v. State. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act. Therefore, this point, I find is of little avail to them.</p><p>9. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002CriLJ101; ILR2001KAR5205; 2002(2)KarLJ76',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
		'sub' => 'Criminal;Narcotics',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '370808',
	(int) 1 => 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/370808/k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

ordermohamed anwar, j.1. heard both sides.2. both these petitioners, who are arraigned as a. 2 and a. 1 respectively, in crime no. 109 of 2001 of the respondent-police station for the offence under section 20(b) of the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances act, 1985 ('n.d.p.s. act'), have approached this court with their petition under section 439 of the cr. p.c. when their simitar application for bail was rejected by the learned sessions judge by his order dated 9-7-2001.3. the prosecution case is that, on 22-6-2001, at about 10.30 a.m., at meenupete of virajapet city in kodagu district, both the petitioners were found present when the deputy superintendent of police of virajapet appeared there with his party on receiving credible information that petitioners were in possession of.....

Judgment:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'K P Sadath and anr Vs State by Virajapet Town Police Station Kodagu District - Citation 370808 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '370808',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/50702/narcotic-drugs-and-psychotropic-substances-act-1985-complete-act">Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> - Sections 20, 37, 37(1) and 42; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 51 and 439 ',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Petition No. 2383 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr. Vs. State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
			'casenote' => ' - Section 16: [K.Ramanna,J] Suit for specific performance of agreement for sale of immovable property Time was essence of contract -Plaintiff purchaser had not taken any steps for furtherance of agreement for a period of 1 year  Held, It shows purchaser was not willing and ready to perform his contract. Also, no material was produced to prove that defendant sought to extend stipulated time for one year to execute regular sale deed. Breach of contract committed by purchaser. Plaintiff is not entitled to relief. 

Section 22: [K.Ramanna,J] Refund earnest money  Agreement for sale of immovable property - Breach of contract by purchaser  Held, Defendant-seller is not entitled to forfeit earnest money in the absence of forfeiture clause in agreement. However earnest money was allowed to be refunded @ 6% interest.  -  Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law. --(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-(a) .(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.M. Chandrashekar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'N.P. Sinigri, State Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-09-26',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Mohamed Anwar, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Mohamed Anwar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard both sides.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Both these petitioners, who are arraigned as A. 2 and A. 1 respectively, in Crime No. 109 of 2001 of the respondent-Police Station for the offence under Section 20(b) of the <a href="/act/50702/narcotic-drugs-and-psychotropic-substances-act-1985-complete-act">Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> ('N.D.P.S. Act'), have approached this Court with their petition under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. when their simitar application for bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 9-7-2001.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The prosecution case is that, on 22-6-2001, at about 10.30 a.m., at Meenupete of Virajapet City in Kodagu District, both the petitioners were found present when the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Virajapet appeared there with his party on receiving credible information that petitioners were in possession of ganja. Then the person of A. 1, who is petitioner 2 herein, was searched. He was found in possession of 12 packets of ganja weighing 5 grams each, totalling 60 grams, while A2, petitioner 1 herein, was found in possession of 11 packets of ganja weighing 50 grams each totalling 550 grams. Then this contraband came to be duly seized by the Deputy Superintendent of Police under a panchanama in the presence of panchas and the said case was booked against them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned Counsel for petitioners initially contended that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act being the imprisonment extending upto 5 years, the rigours of the provisions of Section 37(1)(b) in the matter of bail will not be attracted and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. In support of this contention, a Single Bench decision of this Court in A.V. Dharmasingh v. State of Karnataka, was cited by him. The Court finds that in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar and Anr., the proposition enunciated by this Court in the case of A V. Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act envisages certain restrictions in the matter of grant of bail to an accused who is allegedly involved in commission of any offence under the Act. Its material portion is extracted below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) .....</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. As indicated, the offence under Section 20(b) alleged against petitioners is made punishable under Sub-clause (i) of Section 20(b) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000/-. Interpreting the words 'punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act' occurring in Sub-clause (ii) of Section 37(1) of the Act asexcluding the offences which are made punishable under the Act with imprisonment extending upto five years, the accused in the case of Sambhu Sonkar, supra, who were challenged for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Act, had been granted bail by the High Court of Calcutta. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the aforestated provisions of the Act are attracted to the offence punishable under Section 20(b) and, therefore, the view taken by Calcutta High Court was not legally correct. Thus, the question which arose for consideration of the Supreme Court in that case was: 'The limited question involved in this appeal is whether the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the Narcomic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act') would be applicable in a case where offence is punishable under Section 20(b)(i) for 'possessing gania'. Referring to its earlier decision in Maktool Singh v. State of Punjab, the said question was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the decision of this Court in A.V. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Nextly it was contended by Mr. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for petitioners, that as the total quantity of ganja that was found in possession of A. 1 being 60 grams only, it constituted 'small quantity' within the meaning of Section 27 of the N.D.P.S. Act, for which it provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. But then, it is not in dispute, as has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge in his said order that this accused is involved in another offence under the Act which is registered against him by the concerned authority in Special Case (NDPS) No. 3 of 1998. Therefore, he is disentitled to the remedy of bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Mr. Chandrashekar further pressed a point for my consideration that, as indicated in the seizure panchanama, the said Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted search of both petitioners did not inform either of them that, in law, they had the right to get their persons searched by a Magistrate also, which was an imperative requirement of law under Section 42 of the Act. On this count, Mr. Chandrashekar maintained that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. He proposed to rely on a decision of Delhi High Court in Vidyawati v. State. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act. Therefore, this point, I find is of little avail to them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002CriLJ101; ILR2001KAR5205; 2002(2)KarLJ76',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
			'sub' => 'Criminal;Narcotics',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '370808',
		(int) 1 => 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'K P Sadath and anr Vs State by Virajapet Town Police Station Kodagu District - Citation 370808 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '370808',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/50702/narcotic-drugs-and-psychotropic-substances-act-1985-complete-act">Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> - Sections 20, 37, 37(1) and 42; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 51 and 439 ',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Petition No. 2383 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr. Vs. State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
		'casenote' => ' - Section 16: [K.Ramanna,J] Suit for specific performance of agreement for sale of immovable property Time was essence of contract -Plaintiff purchaser had not taken any steps for furtherance of agreement for a period of 1 year  Held, It shows purchaser was not willing and ready to perform his contract. Also, no material was produced to prove that defendant sought to extend stipulated time for one year to execute regular sale deed. Breach of contract committed by purchaser. Plaintiff is not entitled to relief. 

Section 22: [K.Ramanna,J] Refund earnest money  Agreement for sale of immovable property - Breach of contract by purchaser  Held, Defendant-seller is not entitled to forfeit earnest money in the absence of forfeiture clause in agreement. However earnest money was allowed to be refunded @ 6% interest.  -  Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law. --(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-(a) .(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.M. Chandrashekar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'N.P. Sinigri, State Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-09-26',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Mohamed Anwar, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Mohamed Anwar, J.</p><p>1. Heard both sides.</p><p>2. Both these petitioners, who are arraigned as A. 2 and A. 1 respectively, in Crime No. 109 of 2001 of the respondent-Police Station for the offence under Section 20(b) of the <a>Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> ('N.D.P.S. Act'), have approached this Court with their petition under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. when their simitar application for bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 9-7-2001.</p><p>3. The prosecution case is that, on 22-6-2001, at about 10.30 a.m., at Meenupete of Virajapet City in Kodagu District, both the petitioners were found present when the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Virajapet appeared there with his party on receiving credible information that petitioners were in possession of ganja. Then the person of A. 1, who is petitioner 2 herein, was searched. He was found in possession of 12 packets of ganja weighing 5 grams each, totalling 60 grams, while A2, petitioner 1 herein, was found in possession of 11 packets of ganja weighing 50 grams each totalling 550 grams. Then this contraband came to be duly seized by the Deputy Superintendent of Police under a panchanama in the presence of panchas and the said case was booked against them.</p><p>4. Learned Counsel for petitioners initially contended that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act being the imprisonment extending upto 5 years, the rigours of the provisions of Section 37(1)(b) in the matter of bail will not be attracted and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. In support of this contention, a Single Bench decision of this Court in A.V. Dharmasingh v. State of Karnataka, was cited by him. The Court finds that in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar and Anr., the proposition enunciated by this Court in the case of A V. Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law.</p><p>5. Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act envisages certain restrictions in the matter of grant of bail to an accused who is allegedly involved in commission of any offence under the Act. Its material portion is extracted below:</p><p>'37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-</p><p> (a) .....</p><p> (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-</p><p> (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and</p><p> (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.</p><p> (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail'. </p><p>6. As indicated, the offence under Section 20(b) alleged against petitioners is made punishable under Sub-clause (i) of Section 20(b) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000/-. Interpreting the words 'punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act' occurring in Sub-clause (ii) of Section 37(1) of the Act asexcluding the offences which are made punishable under the Act with imprisonment extending upto five years, the accused in the case of Sambhu Sonkar, supra, who were challenged for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Act, had been granted bail by the High Court of Calcutta. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the aforestated provisions of the Act are attracted to the offence punishable under Section 20(b) and, therefore, the view taken by Calcutta High Court was not legally correct. Thus, the question which arose for consideration of the Supreme Court in that case was: 'The limited question involved in this appeal is whether the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the Narcomic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act') would be applicable in a case where offence is punishable under Section 20(b)(i) for 'possessing gania'. Referring to its earlier decision in Maktool Singh v. State of Punjab, the said question was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the decision of this Court in A.V. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law.</p><p>7. Nextly it was contended by Mr. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for petitioners, that as the total quantity of ganja that was found in possession of A. 1 being 60 grams only, it constituted 'small quantity' within the meaning of Section 27 of the N.D.P.S. Act, for which it provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. But then, it is not in dispute, as has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge in his said order that this accused is involved in another offence under the Act which is registered against him by the concerned authority in Special Case (NDPS) No. 3 of 1998. Therefore, he is disentitled to the remedy of bail.</p><p>8. Mr. Chandrashekar further pressed a point for my consideration that, as indicated in the seizure panchanama, the said Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted search of both petitioners did not inform either of them that, in law, they had the right to get their persons searched by a Magistrate also, which was an imperative requirement of law under Section 42 of the Act. On this count, Mr. Chandrashekar maintained that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. He proposed to rely on a decision of Delhi High Court in Vidyawati v. State. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act. Therefore, this point, I find is of little avail to them.</p><p>9. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002CriLJ101; ILR2001KAR5205; 2002(2)KarLJ76',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
		'sub' => 'Criminal;Narcotics',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '370808',
	(int) 1 => 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/370808/k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Mohamed Anwar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard both sides.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Both these petitioners, who are arraigned as A. 2 and A. 1 respectively, in Crime No. 109 of 2001 of the respondent-Police Station for the offence under Section 20(b) of the <a>Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> ('N.D.P.S. Act'), have approached this Court with their petition under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. when their simitar application for bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 9-7-2001.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The prosecution case is that, on 22-6-2001, at about 10.30 a.m., at Meenupete of Virajapet City in Kodagu District, both the petitioners were found present when the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Virajapet appeared there with his party on receiving credible information that petitioners were in possession of ganja. Then the person of A. 1, who is petitioner 2 herein, was searched. He was found in possession of 12 packets of ganja weighing 5 grams each, totalling 60 grams, while A2, petitioner 1 herein, was found in possession of 11 packets of ganja weighing 50 grams each totalling 550 grams. Then this contraband came to be duly seized by the Deputy Superintendent of Police under a panchanama in the presence of panchas and the said case was booked against them.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned Counsel for petitioners initially contended that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act being the imprisonment extending upto 5 years, the rigours of the provisions of Section 37(1)(b) in the matter of bail will not be attracted and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. In support of this contention, a Single Bench decision of this Court in A.V. Dharmasingh v. State of Karnataka, was cited by him. The Court finds that in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar and Anr., the proposition enunciated by this Court in the case of A V. Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act envisages certain restrictions in the matter of grant of bail to an accused who is allegedly involved in commission of any offence under the Act. Its material portion is extracted below:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (a) .....',
	(int) 8 => '<p> (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-',
	(int) 9 => '<p> (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail'. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>6. As indicated, the offence under Section 20(b) alleged against petitioners is made punishable under Sub-clause (i) of Section 20(b) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000/-. Interpreting the words 'punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act' occurring in Sub-clause (ii) of Section 37(1) of the Act asexcluding the offences which are made punishable under the Act with imprisonment extending upto five years, the accused in the case of Sambhu Sonkar, supra, who were challenged for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Act, had been granted bail by the High Court of Calcutta. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the aforestated provisions of the Act are attracted to the offence punishable under Section 20(b) and, therefore, the view taken by Calcutta High Court was not legally correct. Thus, the question which arose for consideration of the Supreme Court in that case was: 'The limited question involved in this appeal is whether the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the Narcomic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act') would be applicable in a case where offence is punishable under Section 20(b)(i) for 'possessing gania'. Referring to its earlier decision in Maktool Singh v. State of Punjab, the said question was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the decision of this Court in A.V. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>7. Nextly it was contended by Mr. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for petitioners, that as the total quantity of ganja that was found in possession of A. 1 being 60 grams only, it constituted 'small quantity' within the meaning of Section 27 of the N.D.P.S. Act, for which it provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. But then, it is not in dispute, as has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge in his said order that this accused is involved in another offence under the Act which is registered against him by the concerned authority in Special Case (NDPS) No. 3 of 1998. Therefore, he is disentitled to the remedy of bail.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>8. Mr. Chandrashekar further pressed a point for my consideration that, as indicated in the seizure panchanama, the said Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted search of both petitioners did not inform either of them that, in law, they had the right to get their persons searched by a Magistrate also, which was an imperative requirement of law under Section 42 of the Act. On this count, Mr. Chandrashekar maintained that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. He proposed to rely on a decision of Delhi High Court in Vidyawati v. State. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act. Therefore, this point, I find is of little avail to them.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>9. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 16 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 17
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

ORDER

Mohamed Anwar, J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'K P Sadath and anr Vs State by Virajapet Town Police Station Kodagu District - Citation 370808 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '370808',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/50702/narcotic-drugs-and-psychotropic-substances-act-1985-complete-act">Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> - Sections 20, 37, 37(1) and 42; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 51 and 439 ',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Petition No. 2383 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr. Vs. State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
			'casenote' => ' - Section 16: [K.Ramanna,J] Suit for specific performance of agreement for sale of immovable property Time was essence of contract -Plaintiff purchaser had not taken any steps for furtherance of agreement for a period of 1 year  Held, It shows purchaser was not willing and ready to perform his contract. Also, no material was produced to prove that defendant sought to extend stipulated time for one year to execute regular sale deed. Breach of contract committed by purchaser. Plaintiff is not entitled to relief. 

Section 22: [K.Ramanna,J] Refund earnest money  Agreement for sale of immovable property - Breach of contract by purchaser  Held, Defendant-seller is not entitled to forfeit earnest money in the absence of forfeiture clause in agreement. However earnest money was allowed to be refunded @ 6% interest.  -  Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law. --(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-(a) .(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.M. Chandrashekar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'N.P. Sinigri, State Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-09-26',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Mohamed Anwar, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Mohamed Anwar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard both sides.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Both these petitioners, who are arraigned as A. 2 and A. 1 respectively, in Crime No. 109 of 2001 of the respondent-Police Station for the offence under Section 20(b) of the <a href="/act/50702/narcotic-drugs-and-psychotropic-substances-act-1985-complete-act">Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> ('N.D.P.S. Act'), have approached this Court with their petition under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. when their simitar application for bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 9-7-2001.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The prosecution case is that, on 22-6-2001, at about 10.30 a.m., at Meenupete of Virajapet City in Kodagu District, both the petitioners were found present when the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Virajapet appeared there with his party on receiving credible information that petitioners were in possession of ganja. Then the person of A. 1, who is petitioner 2 herein, was searched. He was found in possession of 12 packets of ganja weighing 5 grams each, totalling 60 grams, while A2, petitioner 1 herein, was found in possession of 11 packets of ganja weighing 50 grams each totalling 550 grams. Then this contraband came to be duly seized by the Deputy Superintendent of Police under a panchanama in the presence of panchas and the said case was booked against them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned Counsel for petitioners initially contended that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act being the imprisonment extending upto 5 years, the rigours of the provisions of Section 37(1)(b) in the matter of bail will not be attracted and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. In support of this contention, a Single Bench decision of this Court in A.V. Dharmasingh v. State of Karnataka, was cited by him. The Court finds that in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar and Anr., the proposition enunciated by this Court in the case of A V. Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act envisages certain restrictions in the matter of grant of bail to an accused who is allegedly involved in commission of any offence under the Act. Its material portion is extracted below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) .....</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. As indicated, the offence under Section 20(b) alleged against petitioners is made punishable under Sub-clause (i) of Section 20(b) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000/-. Interpreting the words 'punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act' occurring in Sub-clause (ii) of Section 37(1) of the Act asexcluding the offences which are made punishable under the Act with imprisonment extending upto five years, the accused in the case of Sambhu Sonkar, supra, who were challenged for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Act, had been granted bail by the High Court of Calcutta. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the aforestated provisions of the Act are attracted to the offence punishable under Section 20(b) and, therefore, the view taken by Calcutta High Court was not legally correct. Thus, the question which arose for consideration of the Supreme Court in that case was: 'The limited question involved in this appeal is whether the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the Narcomic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act') would be applicable in a case where offence is punishable under Section 20(b)(i) for 'possessing gania'. Referring to its earlier decision in Maktool Singh v. State of Punjab, the said question was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the decision of this Court in A.V. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Nextly it was contended by Mr. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for petitioners, that as the total quantity of ganja that was found in possession of A. 1 being 60 grams only, it constituted 'small quantity' within the meaning of Section 27 of the N.D.P.S. Act, for which it provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. But then, it is not in dispute, as has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge in his said order that this accused is involved in another offence under the Act which is registered against him by the concerned authority in Special Case (NDPS) No. 3 of 1998. Therefore, he is disentitled to the remedy of bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Mr. Chandrashekar further pressed a point for my consideration that, as indicated in the seizure panchanama, the said Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted search of both petitioners did not inform either of them that, in law, they had the right to get their persons searched by a Magistrate also, which was an imperative requirement of law under Section 42 of the Act. On this count, Mr. Chandrashekar maintained that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. He proposed to rely on a decision of Delhi High Court in Vidyawati v. State. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act. Therefore, this point, I find is of little avail to them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002CriLJ101; ILR2001KAR5205; 2002(2)KarLJ76',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
			'sub' => 'Criminal;Narcotics',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '370808',
		(int) 1 => 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'K P Sadath and anr Vs State by Virajapet Town Police Station Kodagu District - Citation 370808 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '370808',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/50702/narcotic-drugs-and-psychotropic-substances-act-1985-complete-act">Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> - Sections 20, 37, 37(1) and 42; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 51 and 439 ',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Petition No. 2383 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr. Vs. State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
		'casenote' => ' - Section 16: [K.Ramanna,J] Suit for specific performance of agreement for sale of immovable property Time was essence of contract -Plaintiff purchaser had not taken any steps for furtherance of agreement for a period of 1 year  Held, It shows purchaser was not willing and ready to perform his contract. Also, no material was produced to prove that defendant sought to extend stipulated time for one year to execute regular sale deed. Breach of contract committed by purchaser. Plaintiff is not entitled to relief. 

Section 22: [K.Ramanna,J] Refund earnest money  Agreement for sale of immovable property - Breach of contract by purchaser  Held, Defendant-seller is not entitled to forfeit earnest money in the absence of forfeiture clause in agreement. However earnest money was allowed to be refunded @ 6% interest.  -  Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law. --(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-(a) .(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.M. Chandrashekar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'N.P. Sinigri, State Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-09-26',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Mohamed Anwar, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Mohamed Anwar, J.</p><p>1. Heard both sides.</p><p>2. Both these petitioners, who are arraigned as A. 2 and A. 1 respectively, in Crime No. 109 of 2001 of the respondent-Police Station for the offence under Section 20(b) of the <a>Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> ('N.D.P.S. Act'), have approached this Court with their petition under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. when their simitar application for bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 9-7-2001.</p><p>3. The prosecution case is that, on 22-6-2001, at about 10.30 a.m., at Meenupete of Virajapet City in Kodagu District, both the petitioners were found present when the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Virajapet appeared there with his party on receiving credible information that petitioners were in possession of ganja. Then the person of A. 1, who is petitioner 2 herein, was searched. He was found in possession of 12 packets of ganja weighing 5 grams each, totalling 60 grams, while A2, petitioner 1 herein, was found in possession of 11 packets of ganja weighing 50 grams each totalling 550 grams. Then this contraband came to be duly seized by the Deputy Superintendent of Police under a panchanama in the presence of panchas and the said case was booked against them.</p><p>4. Learned Counsel for petitioners initially contended that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act being the imprisonment extending upto 5 years, the rigours of the provisions of Section 37(1)(b) in the matter of bail will not be attracted and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. In support of this contention, a Single Bench decision of this Court in A.V. Dharmasingh v. State of Karnataka, was cited by him. The Court finds that in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar and Anr., the proposition enunciated by this Court in the case of A V. Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law.</p><p>5. Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act envisages certain restrictions in the matter of grant of bail to an accused who is allegedly involved in commission of any offence under the Act. Its material portion is extracted below:</p><p>'37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-</p><p> (a) .....</p><p> (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-</p><p> (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and</p><p> (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.</p><p> (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail'. </p><p>6. As indicated, the offence under Section 20(b) alleged against petitioners is made punishable under Sub-clause (i) of Section 20(b) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000/-. Interpreting the words 'punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act' occurring in Sub-clause (ii) of Section 37(1) of the Act asexcluding the offences which are made punishable under the Act with imprisonment extending upto five years, the accused in the case of Sambhu Sonkar, supra, who were challenged for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Act, had been granted bail by the High Court of Calcutta. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the aforestated provisions of the Act are attracted to the offence punishable under Section 20(b) and, therefore, the view taken by Calcutta High Court was not legally correct. Thus, the question which arose for consideration of the Supreme Court in that case was: 'The limited question involved in this appeal is whether the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the Narcomic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act') would be applicable in a case where offence is punishable under Section 20(b)(i) for 'possessing gania'. Referring to its earlier decision in Maktool Singh v. State of Punjab, the said question was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the decision of this Court in A.V. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law.</p><p>7. Nextly it was contended by Mr. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for petitioners, that as the total quantity of ganja that was found in possession of A. 1 being 60 grams only, it constituted 'small quantity' within the meaning of Section 27 of the N.D.P.S. Act, for which it provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. But then, it is not in dispute, as has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge in his said order that this accused is involved in another offence under the Act which is registered against him by the concerned authority in Special Case (NDPS) No. 3 of 1998. Therefore, he is disentitled to the remedy of bail.</p><p>8. Mr. Chandrashekar further pressed a point for my consideration that, as indicated in the seizure panchanama, the said Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted search of both petitioners did not inform either of them that, in law, they had the right to get their persons searched by a Magistrate also, which was an imperative requirement of law under Section 42 of the Act. On this count, Mr. Chandrashekar maintained that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. He proposed to rely on a decision of Delhi High Court in Vidyawati v. State. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act. Therefore, this point, I find is of little avail to them.</p><p>9. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002CriLJ101; ILR2001KAR5205; 2002(2)KarLJ76',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
		'sub' => 'Criminal;Narcotics',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '370808',
	(int) 1 => 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/370808/k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Mohamed Anwar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard both sides.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Both these petitioners, who are arraigned as A. 2 and A. 1 respectively, in Crime No. 109 of 2001 of the respondent-Police Station for the offence under Section 20(b) of the <a>Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> ('N.D.P.S. Act'), have approached this Court with their petition under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. when their simitar application for bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 9-7-2001.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The prosecution case is that, on 22-6-2001, at about 10.30 a.m., at Meenupete of Virajapet City in Kodagu District, both the petitioners were found present when the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Virajapet appeared there with his party on receiving credible information that petitioners were in possession of ganja. Then the person of A. 1, who is petitioner 2 herein, was searched. He was found in possession of 12 packets of ganja weighing 5 grams each, totalling 60 grams, while A2, petitioner 1 herein, was found in possession of 11 packets of ganja weighing 50 grams each totalling 550 grams. Then this contraband came to be duly seized by the Deputy Superintendent of Police under a panchanama in the presence of panchas and the said case was booked against them.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned Counsel for petitioners initially contended that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act being the imprisonment extending upto 5 years, the rigours of the provisions of Section 37(1)(b) in the matter of bail will not be attracted and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. In support of this contention, a Single Bench decision of this Court in A.V. Dharmasingh v. State of Karnataka, was cited by him. The Court finds that in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar and Anr., the proposition enunciated by this Court in the case of A V. Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act envisages certain restrictions in the matter of grant of bail to an accused who is allegedly involved in commission of any offence under the Act. Its material portion is extracted below:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (a) .....',
	(int) 8 => '<p> (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-',
	(int) 9 => '<p> (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail'. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>6. As indicated, the offence under Section 20(b) alleged against petitioners is made punishable under Sub-clause (i) of Section 20(b) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000/-. Interpreting the words 'punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act' occurring in Sub-clause (ii) of Section 37(1) of the Act asexcluding the offences which are made punishable under the Act with imprisonment extending upto five years, the accused in the case of Sambhu Sonkar, supra, who were challenged for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Act, had been granted bail by the High Court of Calcutta. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the aforestated provisions of the Act are attracted to the offence punishable under Section 20(b) and, therefore, the view taken by Calcutta High Court was not legally correct. Thus, the question which arose for consideration of the Supreme Court in that case was: 'The limited question involved in this appeal is whether the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the Narcomic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act') would be applicable in a case where offence is punishable under Section 20(b)(i) for 'possessing gania'. Referring to its earlier decision in Maktool Singh v. State of Punjab, the said question was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the decision of this Court in A.V. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>7. Nextly it was contended by Mr. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for petitioners, that as the total quantity of ganja that was found in possession of A. 1 being 60 grams only, it constituted 'small quantity' within the meaning of Section 27 of the N.D.P.S. Act, for which it provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. But then, it is not in dispute, as has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge in his said order that this accused is involved in another offence under the Act which is registered against him by the concerned authority in Special Case (NDPS) No. 3 of 1998. Therefore, he is disentitled to the remedy of bail.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>8. Mr. Chandrashekar further pressed a point for my consideration that, as indicated in the seizure panchanama, the said Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted search of both petitioners did not inform either of them that, in law, they had the right to get their persons searched by a Magistrate also, which was an imperative requirement of law under Section 42 of the Act. On this count, Mr. Chandrashekar maintained that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. He proposed to rely on a decision of Delhi High Court in Vidyawati v. State. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act. Therefore, this point, I find is of little avail to them.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>9. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 16 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 17
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. Heard both sides.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'K P Sadath and anr Vs State by Virajapet Town Police Station Kodagu District - Citation 370808 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '370808',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/50702/narcotic-drugs-and-psychotropic-substances-act-1985-complete-act">Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> - Sections 20, 37, 37(1) and 42; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 51 and 439 ',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Petition No. 2383 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr. Vs. State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
			'casenote' => ' - Section 16: [K.Ramanna,J] Suit for specific performance of agreement for sale of immovable property Time was essence of contract -Plaintiff purchaser had not taken any steps for furtherance of agreement for a period of 1 year  Held, It shows purchaser was not willing and ready to perform his contract. Also, no material was produced to prove that defendant sought to extend stipulated time for one year to execute regular sale deed. Breach of contract committed by purchaser. Plaintiff is not entitled to relief. 

Section 22: [K.Ramanna,J] Refund earnest money  Agreement for sale of immovable property - Breach of contract by purchaser  Held, Defendant-seller is not entitled to forfeit earnest money in the absence of forfeiture clause in agreement. However earnest money was allowed to be refunded @ 6% interest.  -  Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law. --(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-(a) .(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.M. Chandrashekar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'N.P. Sinigri, State Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-09-26',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Mohamed Anwar, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Mohamed Anwar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard both sides.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Both these petitioners, who are arraigned as A. 2 and A. 1 respectively, in Crime No. 109 of 2001 of the respondent-Police Station for the offence under Section 20(b) of the <a href="/act/50702/narcotic-drugs-and-psychotropic-substances-act-1985-complete-act">Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> ('N.D.P.S. Act'), have approached this Court with their petition under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. when their simitar application for bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 9-7-2001.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The prosecution case is that, on 22-6-2001, at about 10.30 a.m., at Meenupete of Virajapet City in Kodagu District, both the petitioners were found present when the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Virajapet appeared there with his party on receiving credible information that petitioners were in possession of ganja. Then the person of A. 1, who is petitioner 2 herein, was searched. He was found in possession of 12 packets of ganja weighing 5 grams each, totalling 60 grams, while A2, petitioner 1 herein, was found in possession of 11 packets of ganja weighing 50 grams each totalling 550 grams. Then this contraband came to be duly seized by the Deputy Superintendent of Police under a panchanama in the presence of panchas and the said case was booked against them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned Counsel for petitioners initially contended that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act being the imprisonment extending upto 5 years, the rigours of the provisions of Section 37(1)(b) in the matter of bail will not be attracted and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. In support of this contention, a Single Bench decision of this Court in A.V. Dharmasingh v. State of Karnataka, was cited by him. The Court finds that in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar and Anr., the proposition enunciated by this Court in the case of A V. Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act envisages certain restrictions in the matter of grant of bail to an accused who is allegedly involved in commission of any offence under the Act. Its material portion is extracted below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) .....</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. As indicated, the offence under Section 20(b) alleged against petitioners is made punishable under Sub-clause (i) of Section 20(b) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000/-. Interpreting the words 'punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act' occurring in Sub-clause (ii) of Section 37(1) of the Act asexcluding the offences which are made punishable under the Act with imprisonment extending upto five years, the accused in the case of Sambhu Sonkar, supra, who were challenged for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Act, had been granted bail by the High Court of Calcutta. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the aforestated provisions of the Act are attracted to the offence punishable under Section 20(b) and, therefore, the view taken by Calcutta High Court was not legally correct. Thus, the question which arose for consideration of the Supreme Court in that case was: 'The limited question involved in this appeal is whether the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the Narcomic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act') would be applicable in a case where offence is punishable under Section 20(b)(i) for 'possessing gania'. Referring to its earlier decision in Maktool Singh v. State of Punjab, the said question was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the decision of this Court in A.V. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Nextly it was contended by Mr. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for petitioners, that as the total quantity of ganja that was found in possession of A. 1 being 60 grams only, it constituted 'small quantity' within the meaning of Section 27 of the N.D.P.S. Act, for which it provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. But then, it is not in dispute, as has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge in his said order that this accused is involved in another offence under the Act which is registered against him by the concerned authority in Special Case (NDPS) No. 3 of 1998. Therefore, he is disentitled to the remedy of bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Mr. Chandrashekar further pressed a point for my consideration that, as indicated in the seizure panchanama, the said Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted search of both petitioners did not inform either of them that, in law, they had the right to get their persons searched by a Magistrate also, which was an imperative requirement of law under Section 42 of the Act. On this count, Mr. Chandrashekar maintained that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. He proposed to rely on a decision of Delhi High Court in Vidyawati v. State. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act. Therefore, this point, I find is of little avail to them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002CriLJ101; ILR2001KAR5205; 2002(2)KarLJ76',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
			'sub' => 'Criminal;Narcotics',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '370808',
		(int) 1 => 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'K P Sadath and anr Vs State by Virajapet Town Police Station Kodagu District - Citation 370808 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '370808',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/50702/narcotic-drugs-and-psychotropic-substances-act-1985-complete-act">Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> - Sections 20, 37, 37(1) and 42; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 51 and 439 ',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Petition No. 2383 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr. Vs. State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
		'casenote' => ' - Section 16: [K.Ramanna,J] Suit for specific performance of agreement for sale of immovable property Time was essence of contract -Plaintiff purchaser had not taken any steps for furtherance of agreement for a period of 1 year  Held, It shows purchaser was not willing and ready to perform his contract. Also, no material was produced to prove that defendant sought to extend stipulated time for one year to execute regular sale deed. Breach of contract committed by purchaser. Plaintiff is not entitled to relief. 

Section 22: [K.Ramanna,J] Refund earnest money  Agreement for sale of immovable property - Breach of contract by purchaser  Held, Defendant-seller is not entitled to forfeit earnest money in the absence of forfeiture clause in agreement. However earnest money was allowed to be refunded @ 6% interest.  -  Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law. --(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-(a) .(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.M. Chandrashekar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'N.P. Sinigri, State Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-09-26',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Mohamed Anwar, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Mohamed Anwar, J.</p><p>1. Heard both sides.</p><p>2. Both these petitioners, who are arraigned as A. 2 and A. 1 respectively, in Crime No. 109 of 2001 of the respondent-Police Station for the offence under Section 20(b) of the <a>Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> ('N.D.P.S. Act'), have approached this Court with their petition under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. when their simitar application for bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 9-7-2001.</p><p>3. The prosecution case is that, on 22-6-2001, at about 10.30 a.m., at Meenupete of Virajapet City in Kodagu District, both the petitioners were found present when the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Virajapet appeared there with his party on receiving credible information that petitioners were in possession of ganja. Then the person of A. 1, who is petitioner 2 herein, was searched. He was found in possession of 12 packets of ganja weighing 5 grams each, totalling 60 grams, while A2, petitioner 1 herein, was found in possession of 11 packets of ganja weighing 50 grams each totalling 550 grams. Then this contraband came to be duly seized by the Deputy Superintendent of Police under a panchanama in the presence of panchas and the said case was booked against them.</p><p>4. Learned Counsel for petitioners initially contended that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act being the imprisonment extending upto 5 years, the rigours of the provisions of Section 37(1)(b) in the matter of bail will not be attracted and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. In support of this contention, a Single Bench decision of this Court in A.V. Dharmasingh v. State of Karnataka, was cited by him. The Court finds that in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar and Anr., the proposition enunciated by this Court in the case of A V. Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law.</p><p>5. Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act envisages certain restrictions in the matter of grant of bail to an accused who is allegedly involved in commission of any offence under the Act. Its material portion is extracted below:</p><p>'37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-</p><p> (a) .....</p><p> (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-</p><p> (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and</p><p> (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.</p><p> (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail'. </p><p>6. As indicated, the offence under Section 20(b) alleged against petitioners is made punishable under Sub-clause (i) of Section 20(b) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000/-. Interpreting the words 'punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act' occurring in Sub-clause (ii) of Section 37(1) of the Act asexcluding the offences which are made punishable under the Act with imprisonment extending upto five years, the accused in the case of Sambhu Sonkar, supra, who were challenged for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Act, had been granted bail by the High Court of Calcutta. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the aforestated provisions of the Act are attracted to the offence punishable under Section 20(b) and, therefore, the view taken by Calcutta High Court was not legally correct. Thus, the question which arose for consideration of the Supreme Court in that case was: 'The limited question involved in this appeal is whether the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the Narcomic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act') would be applicable in a case where offence is punishable under Section 20(b)(i) for 'possessing gania'. Referring to its earlier decision in Maktool Singh v. State of Punjab, the said question was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the decision of this Court in A.V. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law.</p><p>7. Nextly it was contended by Mr. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for petitioners, that as the total quantity of ganja that was found in possession of A. 1 being 60 grams only, it constituted 'small quantity' within the meaning of Section 27 of the N.D.P.S. Act, for which it provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. But then, it is not in dispute, as has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge in his said order that this accused is involved in another offence under the Act which is registered against him by the concerned authority in Special Case (NDPS) No. 3 of 1998. Therefore, he is disentitled to the remedy of bail.</p><p>8. Mr. Chandrashekar further pressed a point for my consideration that, as indicated in the seizure panchanama, the said Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted search of both petitioners did not inform either of them that, in law, they had the right to get their persons searched by a Magistrate also, which was an imperative requirement of law under Section 42 of the Act. On this count, Mr. Chandrashekar maintained that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. He proposed to rely on a decision of Delhi High Court in Vidyawati v. State. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act. Therefore, this point, I find is of little avail to them.</p><p>9. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002CriLJ101; ILR2001KAR5205; 2002(2)KarLJ76',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
		'sub' => 'Criminal;Narcotics',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '370808',
	(int) 1 => 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/370808/k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Mohamed Anwar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard both sides.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Both these petitioners, who are arraigned as A. 2 and A. 1 respectively, in Crime No. 109 of 2001 of the respondent-Police Station for the offence under Section 20(b) of the <a>Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> ('N.D.P.S. Act'), have approached this Court with their petition under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. when their simitar application for bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 9-7-2001.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The prosecution case is that, on 22-6-2001, at about 10.30 a.m., at Meenupete of Virajapet City in Kodagu District, both the petitioners were found present when the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Virajapet appeared there with his party on receiving credible information that petitioners were in possession of ganja. Then the person of A. 1, who is petitioner 2 herein, was searched. He was found in possession of 12 packets of ganja weighing 5 grams each, totalling 60 grams, while A2, petitioner 1 herein, was found in possession of 11 packets of ganja weighing 50 grams each totalling 550 grams. Then this contraband came to be duly seized by the Deputy Superintendent of Police under a panchanama in the presence of panchas and the said case was booked against them.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned Counsel for petitioners initially contended that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act being the imprisonment extending upto 5 years, the rigours of the provisions of Section 37(1)(b) in the matter of bail will not be attracted and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. In support of this contention, a Single Bench decision of this Court in A.V. Dharmasingh v. State of Karnataka, was cited by him. The Court finds that in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar and Anr., the proposition enunciated by this Court in the case of A V. Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act envisages certain restrictions in the matter of grant of bail to an accused who is allegedly involved in commission of any offence under the Act. Its material portion is extracted below:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (a) .....',
	(int) 8 => '<p> (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-',
	(int) 9 => '<p> (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail'. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>6. As indicated, the offence under Section 20(b) alleged against petitioners is made punishable under Sub-clause (i) of Section 20(b) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000/-. Interpreting the words 'punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act' occurring in Sub-clause (ii) of Section 37(1) of the Act asexcluding the offences which are made punishable under the Act with imprisonment extending upto five years, the accused in the case of Sambhu Sonkar, supra, who were challenged for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Act, had been granted bail by the High Court of Calcutta. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the aforestated provisions of the Act are attracted to the offence punishable under Section 20(b) and, therefore, the view taken by Calcutta High Court was not legally correct. Thus, the question which arose for consideration of the Supreme Court in that case was: 'The limited question involved in this appeal is whether the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the Narcomic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act') would be applicable in a case where offence is punishable under Section 20(b)(i) for 'possessing gania'. Referring to its earlier decision in Maktool Singh v. State of Punjab, the said question was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the decision of this Court in A.V. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>7. Nextly it was contended by Mr. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for petitioners, that as the total quantity of ganja that was found in possession of A. 1 being 60 grams only, it constituted 'small quantity' within the meaning of Section 27 of the N.D.P.S. Act, for which it provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. But then, it is not in dispute, as has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge in his said order that this accused is involved in another offence under the Act which is registered against him by the concerned authority in Special Case (NDPS) No. 3 of 1998. Therefore, he is disentitled to the remedy of bail.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>8. Mr. Chandrashekar further pressed a point for my consideration that, as indicated in the seizure panchanama, the said Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted search of both petitioners did not inform either of them that, in law, they had the right to get their persons searched by a Magistrate also, which was an imperative requirement of law under Section 42 of the Act. On this count, Mr. Chandrashekar maintained that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. He proposed to rely on a decision of Delhi High Court in Vidyawati v. State. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act. Therefore, this point, I find is of little avail to them.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>9. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 16 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 17
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. Both these petitioners, who are arraigned as A. 2 and A. 1 respectively, in Crime No. 109 of 2001 of the respondent-Police Station for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('N.D.P.S. Act'), have approached this Court with their petition under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. when their simitar application for bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 9-7-2001.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'K P Sadath and anr Vs State by Virajapet Town Police Station Kodagu District - Citation 370808 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '370808',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/50702/narcotic-drugs-and-psychotropic-substances-act-1985-complete-act">Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> - Sections 20, 37, 37(1) and 42; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 51 and 439 ',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Petition No. 2383 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr. Vs. State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
			'casenote' => ' - Section 16: [K.Ramanna,J] Suit for specific performance of agreement for sale of immovable property Time was essence of contract -Plaintiff purchaser had not taken any steps for furtherance of agreement for a period of 1 year  Held, It shows purchaser was not willing and ready to perform his contract. Also, no material was produced to prove that defendant sought to extend stipulated time for one year to execute regular sale deed. Breach of contract committed by purchaser. Plaintiff is not entitled to relief. 

Section 22: [K.Ramanna,J] Refund earnest money  Agreement for sale of immovable property - Breach of contract by purchaser  Held, Defendant-seller is not entitled to forfeit earnest money in the absence of forfeiture clause in agreement. However earnest money was allowed to be refunded @ 6% interest.  -  Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law. --(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-(a) .(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.M. Chandrashekar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'N.P. Sinigri, State Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-09-26',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Mohamed Anwar, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Mohamed Anwar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard both sides.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Both these petitioners, who are arraigned as A. 2 and A. 1 respectively, in Crime No. 109 of 2001 of the respondent-Police Station for the offence under Section 20(b) of the <a href="/act/50702/narcotic-drugs-and-psychotropic-substances-act-1985-complete-act">Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> ('N.D.P.S. Act'), have approached this Court with their petition under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. when their simitar application for bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 9-7-2001.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The prosecution case is that, on 22-6-2001, at about 10.30 a.m., at Meenupete of Virajapet City in Kodagu District, both the petitioners were found present when the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Virajapet appeared there with his party on receiving credible information that petitioners were in possession of ganja. Then the person of A. 1, who is petitioner 2 herein, was searched. He was found in possession of 12 packets of ganja weighing 5 grams each, totalling 60 grams, while A2, petitioner 1 herein, was found in possession of 11 packets of ganja weighing 50 grams each totalling 550 grams. Then this contraband came to be duly seized by the Deputy Superintendent of Police under a panchanama in the presence of panchas and the said case was booked against them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned Counsel for petitioners initially contended that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act being the imprisonment extending upto 5 years, the rigours of the provisions of Section 37(1)(b) in the matter of bail will not be attracted and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. In support of this contention, a Single Bench decision of this Court in A.V. Dharmasingh v. State of Karnataka, was cited by him. The Court finds that in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar and Anr., the proposition enunciated by this Court in the case of A V. Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act envisages certain restrictions in the matter of grant of bail to an accused who is allegedly involved in commission of any offence under the Act. Its material portion is extracted below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) .....</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. As indicated, the offence under Section 20(b) alleged against petitioners is made punishable under Sub-clause (i) of Section 20(b) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000/-. Interpreting the words 'punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act' occurring in Sub-clause (ii) of Section 37(1) of the Act asexcluding the offences which are made punishable under the Act with imprisonment extending upto five years, the accused in the case of Sambhu Sonkar, supra, who were challenged for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Act, had been granted bail by the High Court of Calcutta. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the aforestated provisions of the Act are attracted to the offence punishable under Section 20(b) and, therefore, the view taken by Calcutta High Court was not legally correct. Thus, the question which arose for consideration of the Supreme Court in that case was: 'The limited question involved in this appeal is whether the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the Narcomic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act') would be applicable in a case where offence is punishable under Section 20(b)(i) for 'possessing gania'. Referring to its earlier decision in Maktool Singh v. State of Punjab, the said question was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the decision of this Court in A.V. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Nextly it was contended by Mr. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for petitioners, that as the total quantity of ganja that was found in possession of A. 1 being 60 grams only, it constituted 'small quantity' within the meaning of Section 27 of the N.D.P.S. Act, for which it provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. But then, it is not in dispute, as has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge in his said order that this accused is involved in another offence under the Act which is registered against him by the concerned authority in Special Case (NDPS) No. 3 of 1998. Therefore, he is disentitled to the remedy of bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Mr. Chandrashekar further pressed a point for my consideration that, as indicated in the seizure panchanama, the said Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted search of both petitioners did not inform either of them that, in law, they had the right to get their persons searched by a Magistrate also, which was an imperative requirement of law under Section 42 of the Act. On this count, Mr. Chandrashekar maintained that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. He proposed to rely on a decision of Delhi High Court in Vidyawati v. State. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act. Therefore, this point, I find is of little avail to them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002CriLJ101; ILR2001KAR5205; 2002(2)KarLJ76',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
			'sub' => 'Criminal;Narcotics',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '370808',
		(int) 1 => 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'K P Sadath and anr Vs State by Virajapet Town Police Station Kodagu District - Citation 370808 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '370808',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/50702/narcotic-drugs-and-psychotropic-substances-act-1985-complete-act">Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> - Sections 20, 37, 37(1) and 42; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 51 and 439 ',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Petition No. 2383 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr. Vs. State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
		'casenote' => ' - Section 16: [K.Ramanna,J] Suit for specific performance of agreement for sale of immovable property Time was essence of contract -Plaintiff purchaser had not taken any steps for furtherance of agreement for a period of 1 year  Held, It shows purchaser was not willing and ready to perform his contract. Also, no material was produced to prove that defendant sought to extend stipulated time for one year to execute regular sale deed. Breach of contract committed by purchaser. Plaintiff is not entitled to relief. 

Section 22: [K.Ramanna,J] Refund earnest money  Agreement for sale of immovable property - Breach of contract by purchaser  Held, Defendant-seller is not entitled to forfeit earnest money in the absence of forfeiture clause in agreement. However earnest money was allowed to be refunded @ 6% interest.  -  Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law. --(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-(a) .(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.M. Chandrashekar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'N.P. Sinigri, State Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-09-26',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Mohamed Anwar, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Mohamed Anwar, J.</p><p>1. Heard both sides.</p><p>2. Both these petitioners, who are arraigned as A. 2 and A. 1 respectively, in Crime No. 109 of 2001 of the respondent-Police Station for the offence under Section 20(b) of the <a>Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> ('N.D.P.S. Act'), have approached this Court with their petition under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. when their simitar application for bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 9-7-2001.</p><p>3. The prosecution case is that, on 22-6-2001, at about 10.30 a.m., at Meenupete of Virajapet City in Kodagu District, both the petitioners were found present when the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Virajapet appeared there with his party on receiving credible information that petitioners were in possession of ganja. Then the person of A. 1, who is petitioner 2 herein, was searched. He was found in possession of 12 packets of ganja weighing 5 grams each, totalling 60 grams, while A2, petitioner 1 herein, was found in possession of 11 packets of ganja weighing 50 grams each totalling 550 grams. Then this contraband came to be duly seized by the Deputy Superintendent of Police under a panchanama in the presence of panchas and the said case was booked against them.</p><p>4. Learned Counsel for petitioners initially contended that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act being the imprisonment extending upto 5 years, the rigours of the provisions of Section 37(1)(b) in the matter of bail will not be attracted and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. In support of this contention, a Single Bench decision of this Court in A.V. Dharmasingh v. State of Karnataka, was cited by him. The Court finds that in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar and Anr., the proposition enunciated by this Court in the case of A V. Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law.</p><p>5. Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act envisages certain restrictions in the matter of grant of bail to an accused who is allegedly involved in commission of any offence under the Act. Its material portion is extracted below:</p><p>'37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-</p><p> (a) .....</p><p> (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-</p><p> (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and</p><p> (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.</p><p> (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail'. </p><p>6. As indicated, the offence under Section 20(b) alleged against petitioners is made punishable under Sub-clause (i) of Section 20(b) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000/-. Interpreting the words 'punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act' occurring in Sub-clause (ii) of Section 37(1) of the Act asexcluding the offences which are made punishable under the Act with imprisonment extending upto five years, the accused in the case of Sambhu Sonkar, supra, who were challenged for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Act, had been granted bail by the High Court of Calcutta. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the aforestated provisions of the Act are attracted to the offence punishable under Section 20(b) and, therefore, the view taken by Calcutta High Court was not legally correct. Thus, the question which arose for consideration of the Supreme Court in that case was: 'The limited question involved in this appeal is whether the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the Narcomic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act') would be applicable in a case where offence is punishable under Section 20(b)(i) for 'possessing gania'. Referring to its earlier decision in Maktool Singh v. State of Punjab, the said question was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the decision of this Court in A.V. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law.</p><p>7. Nextly it was contended by Mr. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for petitioners, that as the total quantity of ganja that was found in possession of A. 1 being 60 grams only, it constituted 'small quantity' within the meaning of Section 27 of the N.D.P.S. Act, for which it provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. But then, it is not in dispute, as has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge in his said order that this accused is involved in another offence under the Act which is registered against him by the concerned authority in Special Case (NDPS) No. 3 of 1998. Therefore, he is disentitled to the remedy of bail.</p><p>8. Mr. Chandrashekar further pressed a point for my consideration that, as indicated in the seizure panchanama, the said Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted search of both petitioners did not inform either of them that, in law, they had the right to get their persons searched by a Magistrate also, which was an imperative requirement of law under Section 42 of the Act. On this count, Mr. Chandrashekar maintained that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. He proposed to rely on a decision of Delhi High Court in Vidyawati v. State. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act. Therefore, this point, I find is of little avail to them.</p><p>9. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002CriLJ101; ILR2001KAR5205; 2002(2)KarLJ76',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
		'sub' => 'Criminal;Narcotics',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '370808',
	(int) 1 => 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/370808/k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Mohamed Anwar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard both sides.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Both these petitioners, who are arraigned as A. 2 and A. 1 respectively, in Crime No. 109 of 2001 of the respondent-Police Station for the offence under Section 20(b) of the <a>Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> ('N.D.P.S. Act'), have approached this Court with their petition under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. when their simitar application for bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 9-7-2001.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The prosecution case is that, on 22-6-2001, at about 10.30 a.m., at Meenupete of Virajapet City in Kodagu District, both the petitioners were found present when the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Virajapet appeared there with his party on receiving credible information that petitioners were in possession of ganja. Then the person of A. 1, who is petitioner 2 herein, was searched. He was found in possession of 12 packets of ganja weighing 5 grams each, totalling 60 grams, while A2, petitioner 1 herein, was found in possession of 11 packets of ganja weighing 50 grams each totalling 550 grams. Then this contraband came to be duly seized by the Deputy Superintendent of Police under a panchanama in the presence of panchas and the said case was booked against them.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned Counsel for petitioners initially contended that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act being the imprisonment extending upto 5 years, the rigours of the provisions of Section 37(1)(b) in the matter of bail will not be attracted and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. In support of this contention, a Single Bench decision of this Court in A.V. Dharmasingh v. State of Karnataka, was cited by him. The Court finds that in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar and Anr., the proposition enunciated by this Court in the case of A V. Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act envisages certain restrictions in the matter of grant of bail to an accused who is allegedly involved in commission of any offence under the Act. Its material portion is extracted below:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (a) .....',
	(int) 8 => '<p> (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-',
	(int) 9 => '<p> (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail'. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>6. As indicated, the offence under Section 20(b) alleged against petitioners is made punishable under Sub-clause (i) of Section 20(b) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000/-. Interpreting the words 'punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act' occurring in Sub-clause (ii) of Section 37(1) of the Act asexcluding the offences which are made punishable under the Act with imprisonment extending upto five years, the accused in the case of Sambhu Sonkar, supra, who were challenged for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Act, had been granted bail by the High Court of Calcutta. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the aforestated provisions of the Act are attracted to the offence punishable under Section 20(b) and, therefore, the view taken by Calcutta High Court was not legally correct. Thus, the question which arose for consideration of the Supreme Court in that case was: 'The limited question involved in this appeal is whether the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the Narcomic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act') would be applicable in a case where offence is punishable under Section 20(b)(i) for 'possessing gania'. Referring to its earlier decision in Maktool Singh v. State of Punjab, the said question was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the decision of this Court in A.V. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>7. Nextly it was contended by Mr. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for petitioners, that as the total quantity of ganja that was found in possession of A. 1 being 60 grams only, it constituted 'small quantity' within the meaning of Section 27 of the N.D.P.S. Act, for which it provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. But then, it is not in dispute, as has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge in his said order that this accused is involved in another offence under the Act which is registered against him by the concerned authority in Special Case (NDPS) No. 3 of 1998. Therefore, he is disentitled to the remedy of bail.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>8. Mr. Chandrashekar further pressed a point for my consideration that, as indicated in the seizure panchanama, the said Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted search of both petitioners did not inform either of them that, in law, they had the right to get their persons searched by a Magistrate also, which was an imperative requirement of law under Section 42 of the Act. On this count, Mr. Chandrashekar maintained that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. He proposed to rely on a decision of Delhi High Court in Vidyawati v. State. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act. Therefore, this point, I find is of little avail to them.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>9. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 16 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 17
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. The prosecution case is that, on 22-6-2001, at about 10.30 a.m., at Meenupete of Virajapet City in Kodagu District, both the petitioners were found present when the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Virajapet appeared there with his party on receiving credible information that petitioners were in possession of ganja. Then the person of A. 1, who is petitioner 2 herein, was searched. He was found in possession of 12 packets of ganja weighing 5 grams each, totalling 60 grams, while A2, petitioner 1 herein, was found in possession of 11 packets of ganja weighing 50 grams each totalling 550 grams. Then this contraband came to be duly seized by the Deputy Superintendent of Police under a panchanama in the presence of panchas and the said case was booked against them.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'K P Sadath and anr Vs State by Virajapet Town Police Station Kodagu District - Citation 370808 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '370808',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/50702/narcotic-drugs-and-psychotropic-substances-act-1985-complete-act">Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> - Sections 20, 37, 37(1) and 42; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 51 and 439 ',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Petition No. 2383 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr. Vs. State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
			'casenote' => ' - Section 16: [K.Ramanna,J] Suit for specific performance of agreement for sale of immovable property Time was essence of contract -Plaintiff purchaser had not taken any steps for furtherance of agreement for a period of 1 year  Held, It shows purchaser was not willing and ready to perform his contract. Also, no material was produced to prove that defendant sought to extend stipulated time for one year to execute regular sale deed. Breach of contract committed by purchaser. Plaintiff is not entitled to relief. 

Section 22: [K.Ramanna,J] Refund earnest money  Agreement for sale of immovable property - Breach of contract by purchaser  Held, Defendant-seller is not entitled to forfeit earnest money in the absence of forfeiture clause in agreement. However earnest money was allowed to be refunded @ 6% interest.  -  Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law. --(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-(a) .(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.M. Chandrashekar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'N.P. Sinigri, State Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-09-26',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Mohamed Anwar, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Mohamed Anwar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard both sides.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Both these petitioners, who are arraigned as A. 2 and A. 1 respectively, in Crime No. 109 of 2001 of the respondent-Police Station for the offence under Section 20(b) of the <a href="/act/50702/narcotic-drugs-and-psychotropic-substances-act-1985-complete-act">Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> ('N.D.P.S. Act'), have approached this Court with their petition under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. when their simitar application for bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 9-7-2001.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The prosecution case is that, on 22-6-2001, at about 10.30 a.m., at Meenupete of Virajapet City in Kodagu District, both the petitioners were found present when the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Virajapet appeared there with his party on receiving credible information that petitioners were in possession of ganja. Then the person of A. 1, who is petitioner 2 herein, was searched. He was found in possession of 12 packets of ganja weighing 5 grams each, totalling 60 grams, while A2, petitioner 1 herein, was found in possession of 11 packets of ganja weighing 50 grams each totalling 550 grams. Then this contraband came to be duly seized by the Deputy Superintendent of Police under a panchanama in the presence of panchas and the said case was booked against them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned Counsel for petitioners initially contended that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act being the imprisonment extending upto 5 years, the rigours of the provisions of Section 37(1)(b) in the matter of bail will not be attracted and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. In support of this contention, a Single Bench decision of this Court in A.V. Dharmasingh v. State of Karnataka, was cited by him. The Court finds that in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar and Anr., the proposition enunciated by this Court in the case of A V. Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act envisages certain restrictions in the matter of grant of bail to an accused who is allegedly involved in commission of any offence under the Act. Its material portion is extracted below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) .....</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. As indicated, the offence under Section 20(b) alleged against petitioners is made punishable under Sub-clause (i) of Section 20(b) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000/-. Interpreting the words 'punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act' occurring in Sub-clause (ii) of Section 37(1) of the Act asexcluding the offences which are made punishable under the Act with imprisonment extending upto five years, the accused in the case of Sambhu Sonkar, supra, who were challenged for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Act, had been granted bail by the High Court of Calcutta. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the aforestated provisions of the Act are attracted to the offence punishable under Section 20(b) and, therefore, the view taken by Calcutta High Court was not legally correct. Thus, the question which arose for consideration of the Supreme Court in that case was: 'The limited question involved in this appeal is whether the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the Narcomic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act') would be applicable in a case where offence is punishable under Section 20(b)(i) for 'possessing gania'. Referring to its earlier decision in Maktool Singh v. State of Punjab, the said question was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the decision of this Court in A.V. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Nextly it was contended by Mr. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for petitioners, that as the total quantity of ganja that was found in possession of A. 1 being 60 grams only, it constituted 'small quantity' within the meaning of Section 27 of the N.D.P.S. Act, for which it provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. But then, it is not in dispute, as has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge in his said order that this accused is involved in another offence under the Act which is registered against him by the concerned authority in Special Case (NDPS) No. 3 of 1998. Therefore, he is disentitled to the remedy of bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Mr. Chandrashekar further pressed a point for my consideration that, as indicated in the seizure panchanama, the said Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted search of both petitioners did not inform either of them that, in law, they had the right to get their persons searched by a Magistrate also, which was an imperative requirement of law under Section 42 of the Act. On this count, Mr. Chandrashekar maintained that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. He proposed to rely on a decision of Delhi High Court in Vidyawati v. State. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act. Therefore, this point, I find is of little avail to them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002CriLJ101; ILR2001KAR5205; 2002(2)KarLJ76',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
			'sub' => 'Criminal;Narcotics',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '370808',
		(int) 1 => 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'K P Sadath and anr Vs State by Virajapet Town Police Station Kodagu District - Citation 370808 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '370808',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/50702/narcotic-drugs-and-psychotropic-substances-act-1985-complete-act">Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> - Sections 20, 37, 37(1) and 42; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 51 and 439 ',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Petition No. 2383 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr. Vs. State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
		'casenote' => ' - Section 16: [K.Ramanna,J] Suit for specific performance of agreement for sale of immovable property Time was essence of contract -Plaintiff purchaser had not taken any steps for furtherance of agreement for a period of 1 year  Held, It shows purchaser was not willing and ready to perform his contract. Also, no material was produced to prove that defendant sought to extend stipulated time for one year to execute regular sale deed. Breach of contract committed by purchaser. Plaintiff is not entitled to relief. 

Section 22: [K.Ramanna,J] Refund earnest money  Agreement for sale of immovable property - Breach of contract by purchaser  Held, Defendant-seller is not entitled to forfeit earnest money in the absence of forfeiture clause in agreement. However earnest money was allowed to be refunded @ 6% interest.  -  Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law. --(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-(a) .(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.M. Chandrashekar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'N.P. Sinigri, State Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-09-26',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Mohamed Anwar, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Mohamed Anwar, J.</p><p>1. Heard both sides.</p><p>2. Both these petitioners, who are arraigned as A. 2 and A. 1 respectively, in Crime No. 109 of 2001 of the respondent-Police Station for the offence under Section 20(b) of the <a>Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> ('N.D.P.S. Act'), have approached this Court with their petition under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. when their simitar application for bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 9-7-2001.</p><p>3. The prosecution case is that, on 22-6-2001, at about 10.30 a.m., at Meenupete of Virajapet City in Kodagu District, both the petitioners were found present when the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Virajapet appeared there with his party on receiving credible information that petitioners were in possession of ganja. Then the person of A. 1, who is petitioner 2 herein, was searched. He was found in possession of 12 packets of ganja weighing 5 grams each, totalling 60 grams, while A2, petitioner 1 herein, was found in possession of 11 packets of ganja weighing 50 grams each totalling 550 grams. Then this contraband came to be duly seized by the Deputy Superintendent of Police under a panchanama in the presence of panchas and the said case was booked against them.</p><p>4. Learned Counsel for petitioners initially contended that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act being the imprisonment extending upto 5 years, the rigours of the provisions of Section 37(1)(b) in the matter of bail will not be attracted and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. In support of this contention, a Single Bench decision of this Court in A.V. Dharmasingh v. State of Karnataka, was cited by him. The Court finds that in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar and Anr., the proposition enunciated by this Court in the case of A V. Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law.</p><p>5. Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act envisages certain restrictions in the matter of grant of bail to an accused who is allegedly involved in commission of any offence under the Act. Its material portion is extracted below:</p><p>'37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-</p><p> (a) .....</p><p> (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-</p><p> (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and</p><p> (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.</p><p> (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail'. </p><p>6. As indicated, the offence under Section 20(b) alleged against petitioners is made punishable under Sub-clause (i) of Section 20(b) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000/-. Interpreting the words 'punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act' occurring in Sub-clause (ii) of Section 37(1) of the Act asexcluding the offences which are made punishable under the Act with imprisonment extending upto five years, the accused in the case of Sambhu Sonkar, supra, who were challenged for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Act, had been granted bail by the High Court of Calcutta. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the aforestated provisions of the Act are attracted to the offence punishable under Section 20(b) and, therefore, the view taken by Calcutta High Court was not legally correct. Thus, the question which arose for consideration of the Supreme Court in that case was: 'The limited question involved in this appeal is whether the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the Narcomic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act') would be applicable in a case where offence is punishable under Section 20(b)(i) for 'possessing gania'. Referring to its earlier decision in Maktool Singh v. State of Punjab, the said question was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the decision of this Court in A.V. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law.</p><p>7. Nextly it was contended by Mr. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for petitioners, that as the total quantity of ganja that was found in possession of A. 1 being 60 grams only, it constituted 'small quantity' within the meaning of Section 27 of the N.D.P.S. Act, for which it provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. But then, it is not in dispute, as has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge in his said order that this accused is involved in another offence under the Act which is registered against him by the concerned authority in Special Case (NDPS) No. 3 of 1998. Therefore, he is disentitled to the remedy of bail.</p><p>8. Mr. Chandrashekar further pressed a point for my consideration that, as indicated in the seizure panchanama, the said Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted search of both petitioners did not inform either of them that, in law, they had the right to get their persons searched by a Magistrate also, which was an imperative requirement of law under Section 42 of the Act. On this count, Mr. Chandrashekar maintained that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. He proposed to rely on a decision of Delhi High Court in Vidyawati v. State. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act. Therefore, this point, I find is of little avail to them.</p><p>9. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002CriLJ101; ILR2001KAR5205; 2002(2)KarLJ76',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
		'sub' => 'Criminal;Narcotics',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '370808',
	(int) 1 => 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/370808/k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Mohamed Anwar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard both sides.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Both these petitioners, who are arraigned as A. 2 and A. 1 respectively, in Crime No. 109 of 2001 of the respondent-Police Station for the offence under Section 20(b) of the <a>Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> ('N.D.P.S. Act'), have approached this Court with their petition under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. when their simitar application for bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 9-7-2001.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The prosecution case is that, on 22-6-2001, at about 10.30 a.m., at Meenupete of Virajapet City in Kodagu District, both the petitioners were found present when the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Virajapet appeared there with his party on receiving credible information that petitioners were in possession of ganja. Then the person of A. 1, who is petitioner 2 herein, was searched. He was found in possession of 12 packets of ganja weighing 5 grams each, totalling 60 grams, while A2, petitioner 1 herein, was found in possession of 11 packets of ganja weighing 50 grams each totalling 550 grams. Then this contraband came to be duly seized by the Deputy Superintendent of Police under a panchanama in the presence of panchas and the said case was booked against them.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned Counsel for petitioners initially contended that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act being the imprisonment extending upto 5 years, the rigours of the provisions of Section 37(1)(b) in the matter of bail will not be attracted and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. In support of this contention, a Single Bench decision of this Court in A.V. Dharmasingh v. State of Karnataka, was cited by him. The Court finds that in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar and Anr., the proposition enunciated by this Court in the case of A V. Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act envisages certain restrictions in the matter of grant of bail to an accused who is allegedly involved in commission of any offence under the Act. Its material portion is extracted below:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (a) .....',
	(int) 8 => '<p> (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-',
	(int) 9 => '<p> (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail'. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>6. As indicated, the offence under Section 20(b) alleged against petitioners is made punishable under Sub-clause (i) of Section 20(b) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000/-. Interpreting the words 'punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act' occurring in Sub-clause (ii) of Section 37(1) of the Act asexcluding the offences which are made punishable under the Act with imprisonment extending upto five years, the accused in the case of Sambhu Sonkar, supra, who were challenged for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Act, had been granted bail by the High Court of Calcutta. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the aforestated provisions of the Act are attracted to the offence punishable under Section 20(b) and, therefore, the view taken by Calcutta High Court was not legally correct. Thus, the question which arose for consideration of the Supreme Court in that case was: 'The limited question involved in this appeal is whether the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the Narcomic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act') would be applicable in a case where offence is punishable under Section 20(b)(i) for 'possessing gania'. Referring to its earlier decision in Maktool Singh v. State of Punjab, the said question was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the decision of this Court in A.V. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>7. Nextly it was contended by Mr. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for petitioners, that as the total quantity of ganja that was found in possession of A. 1 being 60 grams only, it constituted 'small quantity' within the meaning of Section 27 of the N.D.P.S. Act, for which it provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. But then, it is not in dispute, as has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge in his said order that this accused is involved in another offence under the Act which is registered against him by the concerned authority in Special Case (NDPS) No. 3 of 1998. Therefore, he is disentitled to the remedy of bail.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>8. Mr. Chandrashekar further pressed a point for my consideration that, as indicated in the seizure panchanama, the said Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted search of both petitioners did not inform either of them that, in law, they had the right to get their persons searched by a Magistrate also, which was an imperative requirement of law under Section 42 of the Act. On this count, Mr. Chandrashekar maintained that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. He proposed to rely on a decision of Delhi High Court in Vidyawati v. State. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act. Therefore, this point, I find is of little avail to them.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>9. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 16 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 17
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. Learned Counsel for petitioners initially contended that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act being the imprisonment extending upto 5 years, the rigours of the provisions of Section 37(1)(b) in the matter of bail will not be attracted and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. In support of this contention, a Single Bench decision of this Court in A.V. Dharmasingh v. State of Karnataka, was cited by him. The Court finds that in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar and Anr., the proposition enunciated by this Court in the case of A V. Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'K P Sadath and anr Vs State by Virajapet Town Police Station Kodagu District - Citation 370808 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '370808',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/50702/narcotic-drugs-and-psychotropic-substances-act-1985-complete-act">Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> - Sections 20, 37, 37(1) and 42; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 51 and 439 ',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Petition No. 2383 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr. Vs. State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
			'casenote' => ' - Section 16: [K.Ramanna,J] Suit for specific performance of agreement for sale of immovable property Time was essence of contract -Plaintiff purchaser had not taken any steps for furtherance of agreement for a period of 1 year  Held, It shows purchaser was not willing and ready to perform his contract. Also, no material was produced to prove that defendant sought to extend stipulated time for one year to execute regular sale deed. Breach of contract committed by purchaser. Plaintiff is not entitled to relief. 

Section 22: [K.Ramanna,J] Refund earnest money  Agreement for sale of immovable property - Breach of contract by purchaser  Held, Defendant-seller is not entitled to forfeit earnest money in the absence of forfeiture clause in agreement. However earnest money was allowed to be refunded @ 6% interest.  -  Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law. --(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-(a) .(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.M. Chandrashekar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'N.P. Sinigri, State Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-09-26',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Mohamed Anwar, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Mohamed Anwar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard both sides.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Both these petitioners, who are arraigned as A. 2 and A. 1 respectively, in Crime No. 109 of 2001 of the respondent-Police Station for the offence under Section 20(b) of the <a href="/act/50702/narcotic-drugs-and-psychotropic-substances-act-1985-complete-act">Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> ('N.D.P.S. Act'), have approached this Court with their petition under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. when their simitar application for bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 9-7-2001.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The prosecution case is that, on 22-6-2001, at about 10.30 a.m., at Meenupete of Virajapet City in Kodagu District, both the petitioners were found present when the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Virajapet appeared there with his party on receiving credible information that petitioners were in possession of ganja. Then the person of A. 1, who is petitioner 2 herein, was searched. He was found in possession of 12 packets of ganja weighing 5 grams each, totalling 60 grams, while A2, petitioner 1 herein, was found in possession of 11 packets of ganja weighing 50 grams each totalling 550 grams. Then this contraband came to be duly seized by the Deputy Superintendent of Police under a panchanama in the presence of panchas and the said case was booked against them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned Counsel for petitioners initially contended that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act being the imprisonment extending upto 5 years, the rigours of the provisions of Section 37(1)(b) in the matter of bail will not be attracted and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. In support of this contention, a Single Bench decision of this Court in A.V. Dharmasingh v. State of Karnataka, was cited by him. The Court finds that in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar and Anr., the proposition enunciated by this Court in the case of A V. Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act envisages certain restrictions in the matter of grant of bail to an accused who is allegedly involved in commission of any offence under the Act. Its material portion is extracted below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) .....</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. As indicated, the offence under Section 20(b) alleged against petitioners is made punishable under Sub-clause (i) of Section 20(b) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000/-. Interpreting the words 'punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act' occurring in Sub-clause (ii) of Section 37(1) of the Act asexcluding the offences which are made punishable under the Act with imprisonment extending upto five years, the accused in the case of Sambhu Sonkar, supra, who were challenged for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Act, had been granted bail by the High Court of Calcutta. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the aforestated provisions of the Act are attracted to the offence punishable under Section 20(b) and, therefore, the view taken by Calcutta High Court was not legally correct. Thus, the question which arose for consideration of the Supreme Court in that case was: 'The limited question involved in this appeal is whether the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the Narcomic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act') would be applicable in a case where offence is punishable under Section 20(b)(i) for 'possessing gania'. Referring to its earlier decision in Maktool Singh v. State of Punjab, the said question was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the decision of this Court in A.V. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Nextly it was contended by Mr. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for petitioners, that as the total quantity of ganja that was found in possession of A. 1 being 60 grams only, it constituted 'small quantity' within the meaning of Section 27 of the N.D.P.S. Act, for which it provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. But then, it is not in dispute, as has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge in his said order that this accused is involved in another offence under the Act which is registered against him by the concerned authority in Special Case (NDPS) No. 3 of 1998. Therefore, he is disentitled to the remedy of bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Mr. Chandrashekar further pressed a point for my consideration that, as indicated in the seizure panchanama, the said Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted search of both petitioners did not inform either of them that, in law, they had the right to get their persons searched by a Magistrate also, which was an imperative requirement of law under Section 42 of the Act. On this count, Mr. Chandrashekar maintained that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. He proposed to rely on a decision of Delhi High Court in Vidyawati v. State. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act. Therefore, this point, I find is of little avail to them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002CriLJ101; ILR2001KAR5205; 2002(2)KarLJ76',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
			'sub' => 'Criminal;Narcotics',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '370808',
		(int) 1 => 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'K P Sadath and anr Vs State by Virajapet Town Police Station Kodagu District - Citation 370808 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '370808',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/50702/narcotic-drugs-and-psychotropic-substances-act-1985-complete-act">Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> - Sections 20, 37, 37(1) and 42; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 51 and 439 ',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Petition No. 2383 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr. Vs. State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
		'casenote' => ' - Section 16: [K.Ramanna,J] Suit for specific performance of agreement for sale of immovable property Time was essence of contract -Plaintiff purchaser had not taken any steps for furtherance of agreement for a period of 1 year  Held, It shows purchaser was not willing and ready to perform his contract. Also, no material was produced to prove that defendant sought to extend stipulated time for one year to execute regular sale deed. Breach of contract committed by purchaser. Plaintiff is not entitled to relief. 

Section 22: [K.Ramanna,J] Refund earnest money  Agreement for sale of immovable property - Breach of contract by purchaser  Held, Defendant-seller is not entitled to forfeit earnest money in the absence of forfeiture clause in agreement. However earnest money was allowed to be refunded @ 6% interest.  -  Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law. --(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-(a) .(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.M. Chandrashekar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'N.P. Sinigri, State Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-09-26',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Mohamed Anwar, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Mohamed Anwar, J.</p><p>1. Heard both sides.</p><p>2. Both these petitioners, who are arraigned as A. 2 and A. 1 respectively, in Crime No. 109 of 2001 of the respondent-Police Station for the offence under Section 20(b) of the <a>Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> ('N.D.P.S. Act'), have approached this Court with their petition under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. when their simitar application for bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 9-7-2001.</p><p>3. The prosecution case is that, on 22-6-2001, at about 10.30 a.m., at Meenupete of Virajapet City in Kodagu District, both the petitioners were found present when the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Virajapet appeared there with his party on receiving credible information that petitioners were in possession of ganja. Then the person of A. 1, who is petitioner 2 herein, was searched. He was found in possession of 12 packets of ganja weighing 5 grams each, totalling 60 grams, while A2, petitioner 1 herein, was found in possession of 11 packets of ganja weighing 50 grams each totalling 550 grams. Then this contraband came to be duly seized by the Deputy Superintendent of Police under a panchanama in the presence of panchas and the said case was booked against them.</p><p>4. Learned Counsel for petitioners initially contended that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act being the imprisonment extending upto 5 years, the rigours of the provisions of Section 37(1)(b) in the matter of bail will not be attracted and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. In support of this contention, a Single Bench decision of this Court in A.V. Dharmasingh v. State of Karnataka, was cited by him. The Court finds that in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar and Anr., the proposition enunciated by this Court in the case of A V. Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law.</p><p>5. Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act envisages certain restrictions in the matter of grant of bail to an accused who is allegedly involved in commission of any offence under the Act. Its material portion is extracted below:</p><p>'37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-</p><p> (a) .....</p><p> (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-</p><p> (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and</p><p> (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.</p><p> (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail'. </p><p>6. As indicated, the offence under Section 20(b) alleged against petitioners is made punishable under Sub-clause (i) of Section 20(b) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000/-. Interpreting the words 'punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act' occurring in Sub-clause (ii) of Section 37(1) of the Act asexcluding the offences which are made punishable under the Act with imprisonment extending upto five years, the accused in the case of Sambhu Sonkar, supra, who were challenged for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Act, had been granted bail by the High Court of Calcutta. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the aforestated provisions of the Act are attracted to the offence punishable under Section 20(b) and, therefore, the view taken by Calcutta High Court was not legally correct. Thus, the question which arose for consideration of the Supreme Court in that case was: 'The limited question involved in this appeal is whether the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the Narcomic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act') would be applicable in a case where offence is punishable under Section 20(b)(i) for 'possessing gania'. Referring to its earlier decision in Maktool Singh v. State of Punjab, the said question was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the decision of this Court in A.V. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law.</p><p>7. Nextly it was contended by Mr. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for petitioners, that as the total quantity of ganja that was found in possession of A. 1 being 60 grams only, it constituted 'small quantity' within the meaning of Section 27 of the N.D.P.S. Act, for which it provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. But then, it is not in dispute, as has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge in his said order that this accused is involved in another offence under the Act which is registered against him by the concerned authority in Special Case (NDPS) No. 3 of 1998. Therefore, he is disentitled to the remedy of bail.</p><p>8. Mr. Chandrashekar further pressed a point for my consideration that, as indicated in the seizure panchanama, the said Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted search of both petitioners did not inform either of them that, in law, they had the right to get their persons searched by a Magistrate also, which was an imperative requirement of law under Section 42 of the Act. On this count, Mr. Chandrashekar maintained that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. He proposed to rely on a decision of Delhi High Court in Vidyawati v. State. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act. Therefore, this point, I find is of little avail to them.</p><p>9. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002CriLJ101; ILR2001KAR5205; 2002(2)KarLJ76',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
		'sub' => 'Criminal;Narcotics',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '370808',
	(int) 1 => 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/370808/k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Mohamed Anwar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard both sides.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Both these petitioners, who are arraigned as A. 2 and A. 1 respectively, in Crime No. 109 of 2001 of the respondent-Police Station for the offence under Section 20(b) of the <a>Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> ('N.D.P.S. Act'), have approached this Court with their petition under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. when their simitar application for bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 9-7-2001.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The prosecution case is that, on 22-6-2001, at about 10.30 a.m., at Meenupete of Virajapet City in Kodagu District, both the petitioners were found present when the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Virajapet appeared there with his party on receiving credible information that petitioners were in possession of ganja. Then the person of A. 1, who is petitioner 2 herein, was searched. He was found in possession of 12 packets of ganja weighing 5 grams each, totalling 60 grams, while A2, petitioner 1 herein, was found in possession of 11 packets of ganja weighing 50 grams each totalling 550 grams. Then this contraband came to be duly seized by the Deputy Superintendent of Police under a panchanama in the presence of panchas and the said case was booked against them.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned Counsel for petitioners initially contended that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act being the imprisonment extending upto 5 years, the rigours of the provisions of Section 37(1)(b) in the matter of bail will not be attracted and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. In support of this contention, a Single Bench decision of this Court in A.V. Dharmasingh v. State of Karnataka, was cited by him. The Court finds that in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar and Anr., the proposition enunciated by this Court in the case of A V. Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act envisages certain restrictions in the matter of grant of bail to an accused who is allegedly involved in commission of any offence under the Act. Its material portion is extracted below:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (a) .....',
	(int) 8 => '<p> (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-',
	(int) 9 => '<p> (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail'. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>6. As indicated, the offence under Section 20(b) alleged against petitioners is made punishable under Sub-clause (i) of Section 20(b) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000/-. Interpreting the words 'punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act' occurring in Sub-clause (ii) of Section 37(1) of the Act asexcluding the offences which are made punishable under the Act with imprisonment extending upto five years, the accused in the case of Sambhu Sonkar, supra, who were challenged for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Act, had been granted bail by the High Court of Calcutta. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the aforestated provisions of the Act are attracted to the offence punishable under Section 20(b) and, therefore, the view taken by Calcutta High Court was not legally correct. Thus, the question which arose for consideration of the Supreme Court in that case was: 'The limited question involved in this appeal is whether the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the Narcomic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act') would be applicable in a case where offence is punishable under Section 20(b)(i) for 'possessing gania'. Referring to its earlier decision in Maktool Singh v. State of Punjab, the said question was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the decision of this Court in A.V. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>7. Nextly it was contended by Mr. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for petitioners, that as the total quantity of ganja that was found in possession of A. 1 being 60 grams only, it constituted 'small quantity' within the meaning of Section 27 of the N.D.P.S. Act, for which it provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. But then, it is not in dispute, as has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge in his said order that this accused is involved in another offence under the Act which is registered against him by the concerned authority in Special Case (NDPS) No. 3 of 1998. Therefore, he is disentitled to the remedy of bail.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>8. Mr. Chandrashekar further pressed a point for my consideration that, as indicated in the seizure panchanama, the said Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted search of both petitioners did not inform either of them that, in law, they had the right to get their persons searched by a Magistrate also, which was an imperative requirement of law under Section 42 of the Act. On this count, Mr. Chandrashekar maintained that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. He proposed to rely on a decision of Delhi High Court in Vidyawati v. State. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act. Therefore, this point, I find is of little avail to them.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>9. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 16 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 17
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act envisages certain restrictions in the matter of grant of bail to an accused who is allegedly involved in commission of any offence under the Act. Its material portion is extracted below:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'K P Sadath and anr Vs State by Virajapet Town Police Station Kodagu District - Citation 370808 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '370808',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/50702/narcotic-drugs-and-psychotropic-substances-act-1985-complete-act">Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> - Sections 20, 37, 37(1) and 42; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 51 and 439 ',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Petition No. 2383 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr. Vs. State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
			'casenote' => ' - Section 16: [K.Ramanna,J] Suit for specific performance of agreement for sale of immovable property Time was essence of contract -Plaintiff purchaser had not taken any steps for furtherance of agreement for a period of 1 year  Held, It shows purchaser was not willing and ready to perform his contract. Also, no material was produced to prove that defendant sought to extend stipulated time for one year to execute regular sale deed. Breach of contract committed by purchaser. Plaintiff is not entitled to relief. 

Section 22: [K.Ramanna,J] Refund earnest money  Agreement for sale of immovable property - Breach of contract by purchaser  Held, Defendant-seller is not entitled to forfeit earnest money in the absence of forfeiture clause in agreement. However earnest money was allowed to be refunded @ 6% interest.  -  Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law. --(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-(a) .(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.M. Chandrashekar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'N.P. Sinigri, State Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-09-26',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Mohamed Anwar, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Mohamed Anwar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard both sides.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Both these petitioners, who are arraigned as A. 2 and A. 1 respectively, in Crime No. 109 of 2001 of the respondent-Police Station for the offence under Section 20(b) of the <a href="/act/50702/narcotic-drugs-and-psychotropic-substances-act-1985-complete-act">Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> ('N.D.P.S. Act'), have approached this Court with their petition under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. when their simitar application for bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 9-7-2001.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The prosecution case is that, on 22-6-2001, at about 10.30 a.m., at Meenupete of Virajapet City in Kodagu District, both the petitioners were found present when the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Virajapet appeared there with his party on receiving credible information that petitioners were in possession of ganja. Then the person of A. 1, who is petitioner 2 herein, was searched. He was found in possession of 12 packets of ganja weighing 5 grams each, totalling 60 grams, while A2, petitioner 1 herein, was found in possession of 11 packets of ganja weighing 50 grams each totalling 550 grams. Then this contraband came to be duly seized by the Deputy Superintendent of Police under a panchanama in the presence of panchas and the said case was booked against them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned Counsel for petitioners initially contended that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act being the imprisonment extending upto 5 years, the rigours of the provisions of Section 37(1)(b) in the matter of bail will not be attracted and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. In support of this contention, a Single Bench decision of this Court in A.V. Dharmasingh v. State of Karnataka, was cited by him. The Court finds that in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar and Anr., the proposition enunciated by this Court in the case of A V. Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act envisages certain restrictions in the matter of grant of bail to an accused who is allegedly involved in commission of any offence under the Act. Its material portion is extracted below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) .....</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. As indicated, the offence under Section 20(b) alleged against petitioners is made punishable under Sub-clause (i) of Section 20(b) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000/-. Interpreting the words 'punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act' occurring in Sub-clause (ii) of Section 37(1) of the Act asexcluding the offences which are made punishable under the Act with imprisonment extending upto five years, the accused in the case of Sambhu Sonkar, supra, who were challenged for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Act, had been granted bail by the High Court of Calcutta. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the aforestated provisions of the Act are attracted to the offence punishable under Section 20(b) and, therefore, the view taken by Calcutta High Court was not legally correct. Thus, the question which arose for consideration of the Supreme Court in that case was: 'The limited question involved in this appeal is whether the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the Narcomic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act') would be applicable in a case where offence is punishable under Section 20(b)(i) for 'possessing gania'. Referring to its earlier decision in Maktool Singh v. State of Punjab, the said question was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the decision of this Court in A.V. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Nextly it was contended by Mr. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for petitioners, that as the total quantity of ganja that was found in possession of A. 1 being 60 grams only, it constituted 'small quantity' within the meaning of Section 27 of the N.D.P.S. Act, for which it provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. But then, it is not in dispute, as has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge in his said order that this accused is involved in another offence under the Act which is registered against him by the concerned authority in Special Case (NDPS) No. 3 of 1998. Therefore, he is disentitled to the remedy of bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Mr. Chandrashekar further pressed a point for my consideration that, as indicated in the seizure panchanama, the said Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted search of both petitioners did not inform either of them that, in law, they had the right to get their persons searched by a Magistrate also, which was an imperative requirement of law under Section 42 of the Act. On this count, Mr. Chandrashekar maintained that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. He proposed to rely on a decision of Delhi High Court in Vidyawati v. State. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act. Therefore, this point, I find is of little avail to them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002CriLJ101; ILR2001KAR5205; 2002(2)KarLJ76',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
			'sub' => 'Criminal;Narcotics',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '370808',
		(int) 1 => 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'K P Sadath and anr Vs State by Virajapet Town Police Station Kodagu District - Citation 370808 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '370808',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/50702/narcotic-drugs-and-psychotropic-substances-act-1985-complete-act">Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> - Sections 20, 37, 37(1) and 42; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 51 and 439 ',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Petition No. 2383 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr. Vs. State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
		'casenote' => ' - Section 16: [K.Ramanna,J] Suit for specific performance of agreement for sale of immovable property Time was essence of contract -Plaintiff purchaser had not taken any steps for furtherance of agreement for a period of 1 year  Held, It shows purchaser was not willing and ready to perform his contract. Also, no material was produced to prove that defendant sought to extend stipulated time for one year to execute regular sale deed. Breach of contract committed by purchaser. Plaintiff is not entitled to relief. 

Section 22: [K.Ramanna,J] Refund earnest money  Agreement for sale of immovable property - Breach of contract by purchaser  Held, Defendant-seller is not entitled to forfeit earnest money in the absence of forfeiture clause in agreement. However earnest money was allowed to be refunded @ 6% interest.  -  Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law. --(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-(a) .(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.M. Chandrashekar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'N.P. Sinigri, State Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-09-26',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Mohamed Anwar, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Mohamed Anwar, J.</p><p>1. Heard both sides.</p><p>2. Both these petitioners, who are arraigned as A. 2 and A. 1 respectively, in Crime No. 109 of 2001 of the respondent-Police Station for the offence under Section 20(b) of the <a>Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> ('N.D.P.S. Act'), have approached this Court with their petition under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. when their simitar application for bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 9-7-2001.</p><p>3. The prosecution case is that, on 22-6-2001, at about 10.30 a.m., at Meenupete of Virajapet City in Kodagu District, both the petitioners were found present when the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Virajapet appeared there with his party on receiving credible information that petitioners were in possession of ganja. Then the person of A. 1, who is petitioner 2 herein, was searched. He was found in possession of 12 packets of ganja weighing 5 grams each, totalling 60 grams, while A2, petitioner 1 herein, was found in possession of 11 packets of ganja weighing 50 grams each totalling 550 grams. Then this contraband came to be duly seized by the Deputy Superintendent of Police under a panchanama in the presence of panchas and the said case was booked against them.</p><p>4. Learned Counsel for petitioners initially contended that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act being the imprisonment extending upto 5 years, the rigours of the provisions of Section 37(1)(b) in the matter of bail will not be attracted and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. In support of this contention, a Single Bench decision of this Court in A.V. Dharmasingh v. State of Karnataka, was cited by him. The Court finds that in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar and Anr., the proposition enunciated by this Court in the case of A V. Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law.</p><p>5. Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act envisages certain restrictions in the matter of grant of bail to an accused who is allegedly involved in commission of any offence under the Act. Its material portion is extracted below:</p><p>'37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-</p><p> (a) .....</p><p> (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-</p><p> (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and</p><p> (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.</p><p> (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail'. </p><p>6. As indicated, the offence under Section 20(b) alleged against petitioners is made punishable under Sub-clause (i) of Section 20(b) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000/-. Interpreting the words 'punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act' occurring in Sub-clause (ii) of Section 37(1) of the Act asexcluding the offences which are made punishable under the Act with imprisonment extending upto five years, the accused in the case of Sambhu Sonkar, supra, who were challenged for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Act, had been granted bail by the High Court of Calcutta. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the aforestated provisions of the Act are attracted to the offence punishable under Section 20(b) and, therefore, the view taken by Calcutta High Court was not legally correct. Thus, the question which arose for consideration of the Supreme Court in that case was: 'The limited question involved in this appeal is whether the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the Narcomic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act') would be applicable in a case where offence is punishable under Section 20(b)(i) for 'possessing gania'. Referring to its earlier decision in Maktool Singh v. State of Punjab, the said question was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the decision of this Court in A.V. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law.</p><p>7. Nextly it was contended by Mr. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for petitioners, that as the total quantity of ganja that was found in possession of A. 1 being 60 grams only, it constituted 'small quantity' within the meaning of Section 27 of the N.D.P.S. Act, for which it provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. But then, it is not in dispute, as has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge in his said order that this accused is involved in another offence under the Act which is registered against him by the concerned authority in Special Case (NDPS) No. 3 of 1998. Therefore, he is disentitled to the remedy of bail.</p><p>8. Mr. Chandrashekar further pressed a point for my consideration that, as indicated in the seizure panchanama, the said Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted search of both petitioners did not inform either of them that, in law, they had the right to get their persons searched by a Magistrate also, which was an imperative requirement of law under Section 42 of the Act. On this count, Mr. Chandrashekar maintained that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. He proposed to rely on a decision of Delhi High Court in Vidyawati v. State. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act. Therefore, this point, I find is of little avail to them.</p><p>9. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002CriLJ101; ILR2001KAR5205; 2002(2)KarLJ76',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
		'sub' => 'Criminal;Narcotics',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '370808',
	(int) 1 => 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/370808/k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Mohamed Anwar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard both sides.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Both these petitioners, who are arraigned as A. 2 and A. 1 respectively, in Crime No. 109 of 2001 of the respondent-Police Station for the offence under Section 20(b) of the <a>Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> ('N.D.P.S. Act'), have approached this Court with their petition under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. when their simitar application for bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 9-7-2001.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The prosecution case is that, on 22-6-2001, at about 10.30 a.m., at Meenupete of Virajapet City in Kodagu District, both the petitioners were found present when the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Virajapet appeared there with his party on receiving credible information that petitioners were in possession of ganja. Then the person of A. 1, who is petitioner 2 herein, was searched. He was found in possession of 12 packets of ganja weighing 5 grams each, totalling 60 grams, while A2, petitioner 1 herein, was found in possession of 11 packets of ganja weighing 50 grams each totalling 550 grams. Then this contraband came to be duly seized by the Deputy Superintendent of Police under a panchanama in the presence of panchas and the said case was booked against them.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned Counsel for petitioners initially contended that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act being the imprisonment extending upto 5 years, the rigours of the provisions of Section 37(1)(b) in the matter of bail will not be attracted and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. In support of this contention, a Single Bench decision of this Court in A.V. Dharmasingh v. State of Karnataka, was cited by him. The Court finds that in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar and Anr., the proposition enunciated by this Court in the case of A V. Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act envisages certain restrictions in the matter of grant of bail to an accused who is allegedly involved in commission of any offence under the Act. Its material portion is extracted below:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (a) .....',
	(int) 8 => '<p> (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-',
	(int) 9 => '<p> (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail'. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>6. As indicated, the offence under Section 20(b) alleged against petitioners is made punishable under Sub-clause (i) of Section 20(b) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000/-. Interpreting the words 'punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act' occurring in Sub-clause (ii) of Section 37(1) of the Act asexcluding the offences which are made punishable under the Act with imprisonment extending upto five years, the accused in the case of Sambhu Sonkar, supra, who were challenged for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Act, had been granted bail by the High Court of Calcutta. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the aforestated provisions of the Act are attracted to the offence punishable under Section 20(b) and, therefore, the view taken by Calcutta High Court was not legally correct. Thus, the question which arose for consideration of the Supreme Court in that case was: 'The limited question involved in this appeal is whether the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the Narcomic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act') would be applicable in a case where offence is punishable under Section 20(b)(i) for 'possessing gania'. Referring to its earlier decision in Maktool Singh v. State of Punjab, the said question was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the decision of this Court in A.V. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>7. Nextly it was contended by Mr. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for petitioners, that as the total quantity of ganja that was found in possession of A. 1 being 60 grams only, it constituted 'small quantity' within the meaning of Section 27 of the N.D.P.S. Act, for which it provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. But then, it is not in dispute, as has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge in his said order that this accused is involved in another offence under the Act which is registered against him by the concerned authority in Special Case (NDPS) No. 3 of 1998. Therefore, he is disentitled to the remedy of bail.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>8. Mr. Chandrashekar further pressed a point for my consideration that, as indicated in the seizure panchanama, the said Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted search of both petitioners did not inform either of them that, in law, they had the right to get their persons searched by a Magistrate also, which was an imperative requirement of law under Section 42 of the Act. On this count, Mr. Chandrashekar maintained that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. He proposed to rely on a decision of Delhi High Court in Vidyawati v. State. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act. Therefore, this point, I find is of little avail to them.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>9. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 16 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 17
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

'37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'K P Sadath and anr Vs State by Virajapet Town Police Station Kodagu District - Citation 370808 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '370808',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/50702/narcotic-drugs-and-psychotropic-substances-act-1985-complete-act">Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> - Sections 20, 37, 37(1) and 42; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 51 and 439 ',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Petition No. 2383 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr. Vs. State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
			'casenote' => ' - Section 16: [K.Ramanna,J] Suit for specific performance of agreement for sale of immovable property Time was essence of contract -Plaintiff purchaser had not taken any steps for furtherance of agreement for a period of 1 year  Held, It shows purchaser was not willing and ready to perform his contract. Also, no material was produced to prove that defendant sought to extend stipulated time for one year to execute regular sale deed. Breach of contract committed by purchaser. Plaintiff is not entitled to relief. 

Section 22: [K.Ramanna,J] Refund earnest money  Agreement for sale of immovable property - Breach of contract by purchaser  Held, Defendant-seller is not entitled to forfeit earnest money in the absence of forfeiture clause in agreement. However earnest money was allowed to be refunded @ 6% interest.  -  Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law. --(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-(a) .(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.M. Chandrashekar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'N.P. Sinigri, State Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-09-26',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Mohamed Anwar, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Mohamed Anwar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard both sides.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Both these petitioners, who are arraigned as A. 2 and A. 1 respectively, in Crime No. 109 of 2001 of the respondent-Police Station for the offence under Section 20(b) of the <a href="/act/50702/narcotic-drugs-and-psychotropic-substances-act-1985-complete-act">Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> ('N.D.P.S. Act'), have approached this Court with their petition under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. when their simitar application for bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 9-7-2001.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The prosecution case is that, on 22-6-2001, at about 10.30 a.m., at Meenupete of Virajapet City in Kodagu District, both the petitioners were found present when the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Virajapet appeared there with his party on receiving credible information that petitioners were in possession of ganja. Then the person of A. 1, who is petitioner 2 herein, was searched. He was found in possession of 12 packets of ganja weighing 5 grams each, totalling 60 grams, while A2, petitioner 1 herein, was found in possession of 11 packets of ganja weighing 50 grams each totalling 550 grams. Then this contraband came to be duly seized by the Deputy Superintendent of Police under a panchanama in the presence of panchas and the said case was booked against them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned Counsel for petitioners initially contended that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act being the imprisonment extending upto 5 years, the rigours of the provisions of Section 37(1)(b) in the matter of bail will not be attracted and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. In support of this contention, a Single Bench decision of this Court in A.V. Dharmasingh v. State of Karnataka, was cited by him. The Court finds that in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar and Anr., the proposition enunciated by this Court in the case of A V. Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act envisages certain restrictions in the matter of grant of bail to an accused who is allegedly involved in commission of any offence under the Act. Its material portion is extracted below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) .....</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. As indicated, the offence under Section 20(b) alleged against petitioners is made punishable under Sub-clause (i) of Section 20(b) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000/-. Interpreting the words 'punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act' occurring in Sub-clause (ii) of Section 37(1) of the Act asexcluding the offences which are made punishable under the Act with imprisonment extending upto five years, the accused in the case of Sambhu Sonkar, supra, who were challenged for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Act, had been granted bail by the High Court of Calcutta. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the aforestated provisions of the Act are attracted to the offence punishable under Section 20(b) and, therefore, the view taken by Calcutta High Court was not legally correct. Thus, the question which arose for consideration of the Supreme Court in that case was: 'The limited question involved in this appeal is whether the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the Narcomic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act') would be applicable in a case where offence is punishable under Section 20(b)(i) for 'possessing gania'. Referring to its earlier decision in Maktool Singh v. State of Punjab, the said question was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the decision of this Court in A.V. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Nextly it was contended by Mr. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for petitioners, that as the total quantity of ganja that was found in possession of A. 1 being 60 grams only, it constituted 'small quantity' within the meaning of Section 27 of the N.D.P.S. Act, for which it provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. But then, it is not in dispute, as has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge in his said order that this accused is involved in another offence under the Act which is registered against him by the concerned authority in Special Case (NDPS) No. 3 of 1998. Therefore, he is disentitled to the remedy of bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Mr. Chandrashekar further pressed a point for my consideration that, as indicated in the seizure panchanama, the said Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted search of both petitioners did not inform either of them that, in law, they had the right to get their persons searched by a Magistrate also, which was an imperative requirement of law under Section 42 of the Act. On this count, Mr. Chandrashekar maintained that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. He proposed to rely on a decision of Delhi High Court in Vidyawati v. State. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act. Therefore, this point, I find is of little avail to them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002CriLJ101; ILR2001KAR5205; 2002(2)KarLJ76',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
			'sub' => 'Criminal;Narcotics',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '370808',
		(int) 1 => 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'K P Sadath and anr Vs State by Virajapet Town Police Station Kodagu District - Citation 370808 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '370808',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/50702/narcotic-drugs-and-psychotropic-substances-act-1985-complete-act">Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> - Sections 20, 37, 37(1) and 42; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 51 and 439 ',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Petition No. 2383 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr. Vs. State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
		'casenote' => ' - Section 16: [K.Ramanna,J] Suit for specific performance of agreement for sale of immovable property Time was essence of contract -Plaintiff purchaser had not taken any steps for furtherance of agreement for a period of 1 year  Held, It shows purchaser was not willing and ready to perform his contract. Also, no material was produced to prove that defendant sought to extend stipulated time for one year to execute regular sale deed. Breach of contract committed by purchaser. Plaintiff is not entitled to relief. 

Section 22: [K.Ramanna,J] Refund earnest money  Agreement for sale of immovable property - Breach of contract by purchaser  Held, Defendant-seller is not entitled to forfeit earnest money in the absence of forfeiture clause in agreement. However earnest money was allowed to be refunded @ 6% interest.  -  Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law. --(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-(a) .(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.M. Chandrashekar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'N.P. Sinigri, State Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-09-26',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Mohamed Anwar, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Mohamed Anwar, J.</p><p>1. Heard both sides.</p><p>2. Both these petitioners, who are arraigned as A. 2 and A. 1 respectively, in Crime No. 109 of 2001 of the respondent-Police Station for the offence under Section 20(b) of the <a>Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> ('N.D.P.S. Act'), have approached this Court with their petition under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. when their simitar application for bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 9-7-2001.</p><p>3. The prosecution case is that, on 22-6-2001, at about 10.30 a.m., at Meenupete of Virajapet City in Kodagu District, both the petitioners were found present when the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Virajapet appeared there with his party on receiving credible information that petitioners were in possession of ganja. Then the person of A. 1, who is petitioner 2 herein, was searched. He was found in possession of 12 packets of ganja weighing 5 grams each, totalling 60 grams, while A2, petitioner 1 herein, was found in possession of 11 packets of ganja weighing 50 grams each totalling 550 grams. Then this contraband came to be duly seized by the Deputy Superintendent of Police under a panchanama in the presence of panchas and the said case was booked against them.</p><p>4. Learned Counsel for petitioners initially contended that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act being the imprisonment extending upto 5 years, the rigours of the provisions of Section 37(1)(b) in the matter of bail will not be attracted and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. In support of this contention, a Single Bench decision of this Court in A.V. Dharmasingh v. State of Karnataka, was cited by him. The Court finds that in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar and Anr., the proposition enunciated by this Court in the case of A V. Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law.</p><p>5. Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act envisages certain restrictions in the matter of grant of bail to an accused who is allegedly involved in commission of any offence under the Act. Its material portion is extracted below:</p><p>'37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-</p><p> (a) .....</p><p> (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-</p><p> (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and</p><p> (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.</p><p> (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail'. </p><p>6. As indicated, the offence under Section 20(b) alleged against petitioners is made punishable under Sub-clause (i) of Section 20(b) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000/-. Interpreting the words 'punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act' occurring in Sub-clause (ii) of Section 37(1) of the Act asexcluding the offences which are made punishable under the Act with imprisonment extending upto five years, the accused in the case of Sambhu Sonkar, supra, who were challenged for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Act, had been granted bail by the High Court of Calcutta. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the aforestated provisions of the Act are attracted to the offence punishable under Section 20(b) and, therefore, the view taken by Calcutta High Court was not legally correct. Thus, the question which arose for consideration of the Supreme Court in that case was: 'The limited question involved in this appeal is whether the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the Narcomic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act') would be applicable in a case where offence is punishable under Section 20(b)(i) for 'possessing gania'. Referring to its earlier decision in Maktool Singh v. State of Punjab, the said question was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the decision of this Court in A.V. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law.</p><p>7. Nextly it was contended by Mr. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for petitioners, that as the total quantity of ganja that was found in possession of A. 1 being 60 grams only, it constituted 'small quantity' within the meaning of Section 27 of the N.D.P.S. Act, for which it provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. But then, it is not in dispute, as has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge in his said order that this accused is involved in another offence under the Act which is registered against him by the concerned authority in Special Case (NDPS) No. 3 of 1998. Therefore, he is disentitled to the remedy of bail.</p><p>8. Mr. Chandrashekar further pressed a point for my consideration that, as indicated in the seizure panchanama, the said Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted search of both petitioners did not inform either of them that, in law, they had the right to get their persons searched by a Magistrate also, which was an imperative requirement of law under Section 42 of the Act. On this count, Mr. Chandrashekar maintained that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. He proposed to rely on a decision of Delhi High Court in Vidyawati v. State. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act. Therefore, this point, I find is of little avail to them.</p><p>9. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002CriLJ101; ILR2001KAR5205; 2002(2)KarLJ76',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
		'sub' => 'Criminal;Narcotics',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '370808',
	(int) 1 => 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/370808/k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Mohamed Anwar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard both sides.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Both these petitioners, who are arraigned as A. 2 and A. 1 respectively, in Crime No. 109 of 2001 of the respondent-Police Station for the offence under Section 20(b) of the <a>Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> ('N.D.P.S. Act'), have approached this Court with their petition under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. when their simitar application for bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 9-7-2001.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The prosecution case is that, on 22-6-2001, at about 10.30 a.m., at Meenupete of Virajapet City in Kodagu District, both the petitioners were found present when the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Virajapet appeared there with his party on receiving credible information that petitioners were in possession of ganja. Then the person of A. 1, who is petitioner 2 herein, was searched. He was found in possession of 12 packets of ganja weighing 5 grams each, totalling 60 grams, while A2, petitioner 1 herein, was found in possession of 11 packets of ganja weighing 50 grams each totalling 550 grams. Then this contraband came to be duly seized by the Deputy Superintendent of Police under a panchanama in the presence of panchas and the said case was booked against them.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned Counsel for petitioners initially contended that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act being the imprisonment extending upto 5 years, the rigours of the provisions of Section 37(1)(b) in the matter of bail will not be attracted and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. In support of this contention, a Single Bench decision of this Court in A.V. Dharmasingh v. State of Karnataka, was cited by him. The Court finds that in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar and Anr., the proposition enunciated by this Court in the case of A V. Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act envisages certain restrictions in the matter of grant of bail to an accused who is allegedly involved in commission of any offence under the Act. Its material portion is extracted below:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (a) .....',
	(int) 8 => '<p> (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-',
	(int) 9 => '<p> (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail'. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>6. As indicated, the offence under Section 20(b) alleged against petitioners is made punishable under Sub-clause (i) of Section 20(b) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000/-. Interpreting the words 'punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act' occurring in Sub-clause (ii) of Section 37(1) of the Act asexcluding the offences which are made punishable under the Act with imprisonment extending upto five years, the accused in the case of Sambhu Sonkar, supra, who were challenged for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Act, had been granted bail by the High Court of Calcutta. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the aforestated provisions of the Act are attracted to the offence punishable under Section 20(b) and, therefore, the view taken by Calcutta High Court was not legally correct. Thus, the question which arose for consideration of the Supreme Court in that case was: 'The limited question involved in this appeal is whether the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the Narcomic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act') would be applicable in a case where offence is punishable under Section 20(b)(i) for 'possessing gania'. Referring to its earlier decision in Maktool Singh v. State of Punjab, the said question was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the decision of this Court in A.V. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>7. Nextly it was contended by Mr. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for petitioners, that as the total quantity of ganja that was found in possession of A. 1 being 60 grams only, it constituted 'small quantity' within the meaning of Section 27 of the N.D.P.S. Act, for which it provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. But then, it is not in dispute, as has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge in his said order that this accused is involved in another offence under the Act which is registered against him by the concerned authority in Special Case (NDPS) No. 3 of 1998. Therefore, he is disentitled to the remedy of bail.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>8. Mr. Chandrashekar further pressed a point for my consideration that, as indicated in the seizure panchanama, the said Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted search of both petitioners did not inform either of them that, in law, they had the right to get their persons searched by a Magistrate also, which was an imperative requirement of law under Section 42 of the Act. On this count, Mr. Chandrashekar maintained that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. He proposed to rely on a decision of Delhi High Court in Vidyawati v. State. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act. Therefore, this point, I find is of little avail to them.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>9. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 16 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 17
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(a) .....

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'K P Sadath and anr Vs State by Virajapet Town Police Station Kodagu District - Citation 370808 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '370808',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/50702/narcotic-drugs-and-psychotropic-substances-act-1985-complete-act">Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> - Sections 20, 37, 37(1) and 42; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 51 and 439 ',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Petition No. 2383 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr. Vs. State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
			'casenote' => ' - Section 16: [K.Ramanna,J] Suit for specific performance of agreement for sale of immovable property Time was essence of contract -Plaintiff purchaser had not taken any steps for furtherance of agreement for a period of 1 year  Held, It shows purchaser was not willing and ready to perform his contract. Also, no material was produced to prove that defendant sought to extend stipulated time for one year to execute regular sale deed. Breach of contract committed by purchaser. Plaintiff is not entitled to relief. 

Section 22: [K.Ramanna,J] Refund earnest money  Agreement for sale of immovable property - Breach of contract by purchaser  Held, Defendant-seller is not entitled to forfeit earnest money in the absence of forfeiture clause in agreement. However earnest money was allowed to be refunded @ 6% interest.  -  Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law. --(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-(a) .(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.M. Chandrashekar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'N.P. Sinigri, State Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-09-26',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Mohamed Anwar, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Mohamed Anwar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard both sides.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Both these petitioners, who are arraigned as A. 2 and A. 1 respectively, in Crime No. 109 of 2001 of the respondent-Police Station for the offence under Section 20(b) of the <a href="/act/50702/narcotic-drugs-and-psychotropic-substances-act-1985-complete-act">Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> ('N.D.P.S. Act'), have approached this Court with their petition under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. when their simitar application for bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 9-7-2001.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The prosecution case is that, on 22-6-2001, at about 10.30 a.m., at Meenupete of Virajapet City in Kodagu District, both the petitioners were found present when the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Virajapet appeared there with his party on receiving credible information that petitioners were in possession of ganja. Then the person of A. 1, who is petitioner 2 herein, was searched. He was found in possession of 12 packets of ganja weighing 5 grams each, totalling 60 grams, while A2, petitioner 1 herein, was found in possession of 11 packets of ganja weighing 50 grams each totalling 550 grams. Then this contraband came to be duly seized by the Deputy Superintendent of Police under a panchanama in the presence of panchas and the said case was booked against them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned Counsel for petitioners initially contended that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act being the imprisonment extending upto 5 years, the rigours of the provisions of Section 37(1)(b) in the matter of bail will not be attracted and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. In support of this contention, a Single Bench decision of this Court in A.V. Dharmasingh v. State of Karnataka, was cited by him. The Court finds that in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar and Anr., the proposition enunciated by this Court in the case of A V. Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act envisages certain restrictions in the matter of grant of bail to an accused who is allegedly involved in commission of any offence under the Act. Its material portion is extracted below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) .....</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. As indicated, the offence under Section 20(b) alleged against petitioners is made punishable under Sub-clause (i) of Section 20(b) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000/-. Interpreting the words 'punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act' occurring in Sub-clause (ii) of Section 37(1) of the Act asexcluding the offences which are made punishable under the Act with imprisonment extending upto five years, the accused in the case of Sambhu Sonkar, supra, who were challenged for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Act, had been granted bail by the High Court of Calcutta. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the aforestated provisions of the Act are attracted to the offence punishable under Section 20(b) and, therefore, the view taken by Calcutta High Court was not legally correct. Thus, the question which arose for consideration of the Supreme Court in that case was: 'The limited question involved in this appeal is whether the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the Narcomic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act') would be applicable in a case where offence is punishable under Section 20(b)(i) for 'possessing gania'. Referring to its earlier decision in Maktool Singh v. State of Punjab, the said question was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the decision of this Court in A.V. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Nextly it was contended by Mr. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for petitioners, that as the total quantity of ganja that was found in possession of A. 1 being 60 grams only, it constituted 'small quantity' within the meaning of Section 27 of the N.D.P.S. Act, for which it provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. But then, it is not in dispute, as has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge in his said order that this accused is involved in another offence under the Act which is registered against him by the concerned authority in Special Case (NDPS) No. 3 of 1998. Therefore, he is disentitled to the remedy of bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Mr. Chandrashekar further pressed a point for my consideration that, as indicated in the seizure panchanama, the said Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted search of both petitioners did not inform either of them that, in law, they had the right to get their persons searched by a Magistrate also, which was an imperative requirement of law under Section 42 of the Act. On this count, Mr. Chandrashekar maintained that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. He proposed to rely on a decision of Delhi High Court in Vidyawati v. State. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act. Therefore, this point, I find is of little avail to them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002CriLJ101; ILR2001KAR5205; 2002(2)KarLJ76',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
			'sub' => 'Criminal;Narcotics',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '370808',
		(int) 1 => 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'K P Sadath and anr Vs State by Virajapet Town Police Station Kodagu District - Citation 370808 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '370808',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/50702/narcotic-drugs-and-psychotropic-substances-act-1985-complete-act">Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> - Sections 20, 37, 37(1) and 42; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 51 and 439 ',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Petition No. 2383 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr. Vs. State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
		'casenote' => ' - Section 16: [K.Ramanna,J] Suit for specific performance of agreement for sale of immovable property Time was essence of contract -Plaintiff purchaser had not taken any steps for furtherance of agreement for a period of 1 year  Held, It shows purchaser was not willing and ready to perform his contract. Also, no material was produced to prove that defendant sought to extend stipulated time for one year to execute regular sale deed. Breach of contract committed by purchaser. Plaintiff is not entitled to relief. 

Section 22: [K.Ramanna,J] Refund earnest money  Agreement for sale of immovable property - Breach of contract by purchaser  Held, Defendant-seller is not entitled to forfeit earnest money in the absence of forfeiture clause in agreement. However earnest money was allowed to be refunded @ 6% interest.  -  Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law. --(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-(a) .(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.M. Chandrashekar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'N.P. Sinigri, State Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-09-26',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Mohamed Anwar, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Mohamed Anwar, J.</p><p>1. Heard both sides.</p><p>2. Both these petitioners, who are arraigned as A. 2 and A. 1 respectively, in Crime No. 109 of 2001 of the respondent-Police Station for the offence under Section 20(b) of the <a>Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> ('N.D.P.S. Act'), have approached this Court with their petition under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. when their simitar application for bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 9-7-2001.</p><p>3. The prosecution case is that, on 22-6-2001, at about 10.30 a.m., at Meenupete of Virajapet City in Kodagu District, both the petitioners were found present when the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Virajapet appeared there with his party on receiving credible information that petitioners were in possession of ganja. Then the person of A. 1, who is petitioner 2 herein, was searched. He was found in possession of 12 packets of ganja weighing 5 grams each, totalling 60 grams, while A2, petitioner 1 herein, was found in possession of 11 packets of ganja weighing 50 grams each totalling 550 grams. Then this contraband came to be duly seized by the Deputy Superintendent of Police under a panchanama in the presence of panchas and the said case was booked against them.</p><p>4. Learned Counsel for petitioners initially contended that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act being the imprisonment extending upto 5 years, the rigours of the provisions of Section 37(1)(b) in the matter of bail will not be attracted and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. In support of this contention, a Single Bench decision of this Court in A.V. Dharmasingh v. State of Karnataka, was cited by him. The Court finds that in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar and Anr., the proposition enunciated by this Court in the case of A V. Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law.</p><p>5. Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act envisages certain restrictions in the matter of grant of bail to an accused who is allegedly involved in commission of any offence under the Act. Its material portion is extracted below:</p><p>'37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-</p><p> (a) .....</p><p> (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-</p><p> (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and</p><p> (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.</p><p> (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail'. </p><p>6. As indicated, the offence under Section 20(b) alleged against petitioners is made punishable under Sub-clause (i) of Section 20(b) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000/-. Interpreting the words 'punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act' occurring in Sub-clause (ii) of Section 37(1) of the Act asexcluding the offences which are made punishable under the Act with imprisonment extending upto five years, the accused in the case of Sambhu Sonkar, supra, who were challenged for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Act, had been granted bail by the High Court of Calcutta. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the aforestated provisions of the Act are attracted to the offence punishable under Section 20(b) and, therefore, the view taken by Calcutta High Court was not legally correct. Thus, the question which arose for consideration of the Supreme Court in that case was: 'The limited question involved in this appeal is whether the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the Narcomic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act') would be applicable in a case where offence is punishable under Section 20(b)(i) for 'possessing gania'. Referring to its earlier decision in Maktool Singh v. State of Punjab, the said question was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the decision of this Court in A.V. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law.</p><p>7. Nextly it was contended by Mr. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for petitioners, that as the total quantity of ganja that was found in possession of A. 1 being 60 grams only, it constituted 'small quantity' within the meaning of Section 27 of the N.D.P.S. Act, for which it provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. But then, it is not in dispute, as has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge in his said order that this accused is involved in another offence under the Act which is registered against him by the concerned authority in Special Case (NDPS) No. 3 of 1998. Therefore, he is disentitled to the remedy of bail.</p><p>8. Mr. Chandrashekar further pressed a point for my consideration that, as indicated in the seizure panchanama, the said Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted search of both petitioners did not inform either of them that, in law, they had the right to get their persons searched by a Magistrate also, which was an imperative requirement of law under Section 42 of the Act. On this count, Mr. Chandrashekar maintained that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. He proposed to rely on a decision of Delhi High Court in Vidyawati v. State. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act. Therefore, this point, I find is of little avail to them.</p><p>9. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002CriLJ101; ILR2001KAR5205; 2002(2)KarLJ76',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
		'sub' => 'Criminal;Narcotics',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '370808',
	(int) 1 => 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/370808/k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Mohamed Anwar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard both sides.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Both these petitioners, who are arraigned as A. 2 and A. 1 respectively, in Crime No. 109 of 2001 of the respondent-Police Station for the offence under Section 20(b) of the <a>Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> ('N.D.P.S. Act'), have approached this Court with their petition under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. when their simitar application for bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 9-7-2001.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The prosecution case is that, on 22-6-2001, at about 10.30 a.m., at Meenupete of Virajapet City in Kodagu District, both the petitioners were found present when the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Virajapet appeared there with his party on receiving credible information that petitioners were in possession of ganja. Then the person of A. 1, who is petitioner 2 herein, was searched. He was found in possession of 12 packets of ganja weighing 5 grams each, totalling 60 grams, while A2, petitioner 1 herein, was found in possession of 11 packets of ganja weighing 50 grams each totalling 550 grams. Then this contraband came to be duly seized by the Deputy Superintendent of Police under a panchanama in the presence of panchas and the said case was booked against them.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned Counsel for petitioners initially contended that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act being the imprisonment extending upto 5 years, the rigours of the provisions of Section 37(1)(b) in the matter of bail will not be attracted and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. In support of this contention, a Single Bench decision of this Court in A.V. Dharmasingh v. State of Karnataka, was cited by him. The Court finds that in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar and Anr., the proposition enunciated by this Court in the case of A V. Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act envisages certain restrictions in the matter of grant of bail to an accused who is allegedly involved in commission of any offence under the Act. Its material portion is extracted below:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (a) .....',
	(int) 8 => '<p> (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-',
	(int) 9 => '<p> (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail'. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>6. As indicated, the offence under Section 20(b) alleged against petitioners is made punishable under Sub-clause (i) of Section 20(b) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000/-. Interpreting the words 'punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act' occurring in Sub-clause (ii) of Section 37(1) of the Act asexcluding the offences which are made punishable under the Act with imprisonment extending upto five years, the accused in the case of Sambhu Sonkar, supra, who were challenged for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Act, had been granted bail by the High Court of Calcutta. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the aforestated provisions of the Act are attracted to the offence punishable under Section 20(b) and, therefore, the view taken by Calcutta High Court was not legally correct. Thus, the question which arose for consideration of the Supreme Court in that case was: 'The limited question involved in this appeal is whether the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the Narcomic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act') would be applicable in a case where offence is punishable under Section 20(b)(i) for 'possessing gania'. Referring to its earlier decision in Maktool Singh v. State of Punjab, the said question was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the decision of this Court in A.V. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>7. Nextly it was contended by Mr. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for petitioners, that as the total quantity of ganja that was found in possession of A. 1 being 60 grams only, it constituted 'small quantity' within the meaning of Section 27 of the N.D.P.S. Act, for which it provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. But then, it is not in dispute, as has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge in his said order that this accused is involved in another offence under the Act which is registered against him by the concerned authority in Special Case (NDPS) No. 3 of 1998. Therefore, he is disentitled to the remedy of bail.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>8. Mr. Chandrashekar further pressed a point for my consideration that, as indicated in the seizure panchanama, the said Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted search of both petitioners did not inform either of them that, in law, they had the right to get their persons searched by a Magistrate also, which was an imperative requirement of law under Section 42 of the Act. On this count, Mr. Chandrashekar maintained that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. He proposed to rely on a decision of Delhi High Court in Vidyawati v. State. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act. Therefore, this point, I find is of little avail to them.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>9. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 16 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 17
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'K P Sadath and anr Vs State by Virajapet Town Police Station Kodagu District - Citation 370808 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '370808',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/50702/narcotic-drugs-and-psychotropic-substances-act-1985-complete-act">Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> - Sections 20, 37, 37(1) and 42; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 51 and 439 ',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Petition No. 2383 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr. Vs. State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
			'casenote' => ' - Section 16: [K.Ramanna,J] Suit for specific performance of agreement for sale of immovable property Time was essence of contract -Plaintiff purchaser had not taken any steps for furtherance of agreement for a period of 1 year  Held, It shows purchaser was not willing and ready to perform his contract. Also, no material was produced to prove that defendant sought to extend stipulated time for one year to execute regular sale deed. Breach of contract committed by purchaser. Plaintiff is not entitled to relief. 

Section 22: [K.Ramanna,J] Refund earnest money  Agreement for sale of immovable property - Breach of contract by purchaser  Held, Defendant-seller is not entitled to forfeit earnest money in the absence of forfeiture clause in agreement. However earnest money was allowed to be refunded @ 6% interest.  -  Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law. --(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-(a) .(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.M. Chandrashekar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'N.P. Sinigri, State Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-09-26',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Mohamed Anwar, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Mohamed Anwar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard both sides.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Both these petitioners, who are arraigned as A. 2 and A. 1 respectively, in Crime No. 109 of 2001 of the respondent-Police Station for the offence under Section 20(b) of the <a href="/act/50702/narcotic-drugs-and-psychotropic-substances-act-1985-complete-act">Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> ('N.D.P.S. Act'), have approached this Court with their petition under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. when their simitar application for bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 9-7-2001.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The prosecution case is that, on 22-6-2001, at about 10.30 a.m., at Meenupete of Virajapet City in Kodagu District, both the petitioners were found present when the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Virajapet appeared there with his party on receiving credible information that petitioners were in possession of ganja. Then the person of A. 1, who is petitioner 2 herein, was searched. He was found in possession of 12 packets of ganja weighing 5 grams each, totalling 60 grams, while A2, petitioner 1 herein, was found in possession of 11 packets of ganja weighing 50 grams each totalling 550 grams. Then this contraband came to be duly seized by the Deputy Superintendent of Police under a panchanama in the presence of panchas and the said case was booked against them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned Counsel for petitioners initially contended that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act being the imprisonment extending upto 5 years, the rigours of the provisions of Section 37(1)(b) in the matter of bail will not be attracted and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. In support of this contention, a Single Bench decision of this Court in A.V. Dharmasingh v. State of Karnataka, was cited by him. The Court finds that in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar and Anr., the proposition enunciated by this Court in the case of A V. Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act envisages certain restrictions in the matter of grant of bail to an accused who is allegedly involved in commission of any offence under the Act. Its material portion is extracted below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) .....</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. As indicated, the offence under Section 20(b) alleged against petitioners is made punishable under Sub-clause (i) of Section 20(b) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000/-. Interpreting the words 'punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act' occurring in Sub-clause (ii) of Section 37(1) of the Act asexcluding the offences which are made punishable under the Act with imprisonment extending upto five years, the accused in the case of Sambhu Sonkar, supra, who were challenged for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Act, had been granted bail by the High Court of Calcutta. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the aforestated provisions of the Act are attracted to the offence punishable under Section 20(b) and, therefore, the view taken by Calcutta High Court was not legally correct. Thus, the question which arose for consideration of the Supreme Court in that case was: 'The limited question involved in this appeal is whether the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the Narcomic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act') would be applicable in a case where offence is punishable under Section 20(b)(i) for 'possessing gania'. Referring to its earlier decision in Maktool Singh v. State of Punjab, the said question was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the decision of this Court in A.V. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Nextly it was contended by Mr. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for petitioners, that as the total quantity of ganja that was found in possession of A. 1 being 60 grams only, it constituted 'small quantity' within the meaning of Section 27 of the N.D.P.S. Act, for which it provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. But then, it is not in dispute, as has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge in his said order that this accused is involved in another offence under the Act which is registered against him by the concerned authority in Special Case (NDPS) No. 3 of 1998. Therefore, he is disentitled to the remedy of bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Mr. Chandrashekar further pressed a point for my consideration that, as indicated in the seizure panchanama, the said Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted search of both petitioners did not inform either of them that, in law, they had the right to get their persons searched by a Magistrate also, which was an imperative requirement of law under Section 42 of the Act. On this count, Mr. Chandrashekar maintained that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. He proposed to rely on a decision of Delhi High Court in Vidyawati v. State. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act. Therefore, this point, I find is of little avail to them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002CriLJ101; ILR2001KAR5205; 2002(2)KarLJ76',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
			'sub' => 'Criminal;Narcotics',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '370808',
		(int) 1 => 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'K P Sadath and anr Vs State by Virajapet Town Police Station Kodagu District - Citation 370808 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '370808',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/50702/narcotic-drugs-and-psychotropic-substances-act-1985-complete-act">Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> - Sections 20, 37, 37(1) and 42; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 51 and 439 ',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Petition No. 2383 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr. Vs. State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
		'casenote' => ' - Section 16: [K.Ramanna,J] Suit for specific performance of agreement for sale of immovable property Time was essence of contract -Plaintiff purchaser had not taken any steps for furtherance of agreement for a period of 1 year  Held, It shows purchaser was not willing and ready to perform his contract. Also, no material was produced to prove that defendant sought to extend stipulated time for one year to execute regular sale deed. Breach of contract committed by purchaser. Plaintiff is not entitled to relief. 

Section 22: [K.Ramanna,J] Refund earnest money  Agreement for sale of immovable property - Breach of contract by purchaser  Held, Defendant-seller is not entitled to forfeit earnest money in the absence of forfeiture clause in agreement. However earnest money was allowed to be refunded @ 6% interest.  -  Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law. --(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-(a) .(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.M. Chandrashekar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'N.P. Sinigri, State Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-09-26',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Mohamed Anwar, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Mohamed Anwar, J.</p><p>1. Heard both sides.</p><p>2. Both these petitioners, who are arraigned as A. 2 and A. 1 respectively, in Crime No. 109 of 2001 of the respondent-Police Station for the offence under Section 20(b) of the <a>Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> ('N.D.P.S. Act'), have approached this Court with their petition under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. when their simitar application for bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 9-7-2001.</p><p>3. The prosecution case is that, on 22-6-2001, at about 10.30 a.m., at Meenupete of Virajapet City in Kodagu District, both the petitioners were found present when the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Virajapet appeared there with his party on receiving credible information that petitioners were in possession of ganja. Then the person of A. 1, who is petitioner 2 herein, was searched. He was found in possession of 12 packets of ganja weighing 5 grams each, totalling 60 grams, while A2, petitioner 1 herein, was found in possession of 11 packets of ganja weighing 50 grams each totalling 550 grams. Then this contraband came to be duly seized by the Deputy Superintendent of Police under a panchanama in the presence of panchas and the said case was booked against them.</p><p>4. Learned Counsel for petitioners initially contended that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act being the imprisonment extending upto 5 years, the rigours of the provisions of Section 37(1)(b) in the matter of bail will not be attracted and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. In support of this contention, a Single Bench decision of this Court in A.V. Dharmasingh v. State of Karnataka, was cited by him. The Court finds that in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar and Anr., the proposition enunciated by this Court in the case of A V. Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law.</p><p>5. Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act envisages certain restrictions in the matter of grant of bail to an accused who is allegedly involved in commission of any offence under the Act. Its material portion is extracted below:</p><p>'37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-</p><p> (a) .....</p><p> (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-</p><p> (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and</p><p> (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.</p><p> (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail'. </p><p>6. As indicated, the offence under Section 20(b) alleged against petitioners is made punishable under Sub-clause (i) of Section 20(b) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000/-. Interpreting the words 'punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act' occurring in Sub-clause (ii) of Section 37(1) of the Act asexcluding the offences which are made punishable under the Act with imprisonment extending upto five years, the accused in the case of Sambhu Sonkar, supra, who were challenged for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Act, had been granted bail by the High Court of Calcutta. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the aforestated provisions of the Act are attracted to the offence punishable under Section 20(b) and, therefore, the view taken by Calcutta High Court was not legally correct. Thus, the question which arose for consideration of the Supreme Court in that case was: 'The limited question involved in this appeal is whether the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the Narcomic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act') would be applicable in a case where offence is punishable under Section 20(b)(i) for 'possessing gania'. Referring to its earlier decision in Maktool Singh v. State of Punjab, the said question was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the decision of this Court in A.V. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law.</p><p>7. Nextly it was contended by Mr. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for petitioners, that as the total quantity of ganja that was found in possession of A. 1 being 60 grams only, it constituted 'small quantity' within the meaning of Section 27 of the N.D.P.S. Act, for which it provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. But then, it is not in dispute, as has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge in his said order that this accused is involved in another offence under the Act which is registered against him by the concerned authority in Special Case (NDPS) No. 3 of 1998. Therefore, he is disentitled to the remedy of bail.</p><p>8. Mr. Chandrashekar further pressed a point for my consideration that, as indicated in the seizure panchanama, the said Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted search of both petitioners did not inform either of them that, in law, they had the right to get their persons searched by a Magistrate also, which was an imperative requirement of law under Section 42 of the Act. On this count, Mr. Chandrashekar maintained that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. He proposed to rely on a decision of Delhi High Court in Vidyawati v. State. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act. Therefore, this point, I find is of little avail to them.</p><p>9. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002CriLJ101; ILR2001KAR5205; 2002(2)KarLJ76',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
		'sub' => 'Criminal;Narcotics',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '370808',
	(int) 1 => 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/370808/k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Mohamed Anwar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard both sides.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Both these petitioners, who are arraigned as A. 2 and A. 1 respectively, in Crime No. 109 of 2001 of the respondent-Police Station for the offence under Section 20(b) of the <a>Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> ('N.D.P.S. Act'), have approached this Court with their petition under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. when their simitar application for bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 9-7-2001.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The prosecution case is that, on 22-6-2001, at about 10.30 a.m., at Meenupete of Virajapet City in Kodagu District, both the petitioners were found present when the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Virajapet appeared there with his party on receiving credible information that petitioners were in possession of ganja. Then the person of A. 1, who is petitioner 2 herein, was searched. He was found in possession of 12 packets of ganja weighing 5 grams each, totalling 60 grams, while A2, petitioner 1 herein, was found in possession of 11 packets of ganja weighing 50 grams each totalling 550 grams. Then this contraband came to be duly seized by the Deputy Superintendent of Police under a panchanama in the presence of panchas and the said case was booked against them.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned Counsel for petitioners initially contended that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act being the imprisonment extending upto 5 years, the rigours of the provisions of Section 37(1)(b) in the matter of bail will not be attracted and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. In support of this contention, a Single Bench decision of this Court in A.V. Dharmasingh v. State of Karnataka, was cited by him. The Court finds that in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar and Anr., the proposition enunciated by this Court in the case of A V. Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act envisages certain restrictions in the matter of grant of bail to an accused who is allegedly involved in commission of any offence under the Act. Its material portion is extracted below:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (a) .....',
	(int) 8 => '<p> (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-',
	(int) 9 => '<p> (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail'. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>6. As indicated, the offence under Section 20(b) alleged against petitioners is made punishable under Sub-clause (i) of Section 20(b) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000/-. Interpreting the words 'punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act' occurring in Sub-clause (ii) of Section 37(1) of the Act asexcluding the offences which are made punishable under the Act with imprisonment extending upto five years, the accused in the case of Sambhu Sonkar, supra, who were challenged for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Act, had been granted bail by the High Court of Calcutta. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the aforestated provisions of the Act are attracted to the offence punishable under Section 20(b) and, therefore, the view taken by Calcutta High Court was not legally correct. Thus, the question which arose for consideration of the Supreme Court in that case was: 'The limited question involved in this appeal is whether the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the Narcomic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act') would be applicable in a case where offence is punishable under Section 20(b)(i) for 'possessing gania'. Referring to its earlier decision in Maktool Singh v. State of Punjab, the said question was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the decision of this Court in A.V. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>7. Nextly it was contended by Mr. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for petitioners, that as the total quantity of ganja that was found in possession of A. 1 being 60 grams only, it constituted 'small quantity' within the meaning of Section 27 of the N.D.P.S. Act, for which it provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. But then, it is not in dispute, as has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge in his said order that this accused is involved in another offence under the Act which is registered against him by the concerned authority in Special Case (NDPS) No. 3 of 1998. Therefore, he is disentitled to the remedy of bail.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>8. Mr. Chandrashekar further pressed a point for my consideration that, as indicated in the seizure panchanama, the said Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted search of both petitioners did not inform either of them that, in law, they had the right to get their persons searched by a Magistrate also, which was an imperative requirement of law under Section 42 of the Act. On this count, Mr. Chandrashekar maintained that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. He proposed to rely on a decision of Delhi High Court in Vidyawati v. State. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act. Therefore, this point, I find is of little avail to them.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>9. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 16 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 17
$i = (int) 9
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'K P Sadath and anr Vs State by Virajapet Town Police Station Kodagu District - Citation 370808 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '370808',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/50702/narcotic-drugs-and-psychotropic-substances-act-1985-complete-act">Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> - Sections 20, 37, 37(1) and 42; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 51 and 439 ',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Petition No. 2383 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr. Vs. State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
			'casenote' => ' - Section 16: [K.Ramanna,J] Suit for specific performance of agreement for sale of immovable property Time was essence of contract -Plaintiff purchaser had not taken any steps for furtherance of agreement for a period of 1 year  Held, It shows purchaser was not willing and ready to perform his contract. Also, no material was produced to prove that defendant sought to extend stipulated time for one year to execute regular sale deed. Breach of contract committed by purchaser. Plaintiff is not entitled to relief. 

Section 22: [K.Ramanna,J] Refund earnest money  Agreement for sale of immovable property - Breach of contract by purchaser  Held, Defendant-seller is not entitled to forfeit earnest money in the absence of forfeiture clause in agreement. However earnest money was allowed to be refunded @ 6% interest.  -  Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law. --(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-(a) .(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.M. Chandrashekar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'N.P. Sinigri, State Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-09-26',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Mohamed Anwar, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Mohamed Anwar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard both sides.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Both these petitioners, who are arraigned as A. 2 and A. 1 respectively, in Crime No. 109 of 2001 of the respondent-Police Station for the offence under Section 20(b) of the <a href="/act/50702/narcotic-drugs-and-psychotropic-substances-act-1985-complete-act">Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> ('N.D.P.S. Act'), have approached this Court with their petition under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. when their simitar application for bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 9-7-2001.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The prosecution case is that, on 22-6-2001, at about 10.30 a.m., at Meenupete of Virajapet City in Kodagu District, both the petitioners were found present when the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Virajapet appeared there with his party on receiving credible information that petitioners were in possession of ganja. Then the person of A. 1, who is petitioner 2 herein, was searched. He was found in possession of 12 packets of ganja weighing 5 grams each, totalling 60 grams, while A2, petitioner 1 herein, was found in possession of 11 packets of ganja weighing 50 grams each totalling 550 grams. Then this contraband came to be duly seized by the Deputy Superintendent of Police under a panchanama in the presence of panchas and the said case was booked against them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned Counsel for petitioners initially contended that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act being the imprisonment extending upto 5 years, the rigours of the provisions of Section 37(1)(b) in the matter of bail will not be attracted and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. In support of this contention, a Single Bench decision of this Court in A.V. Dharmasingh v. State of Karnataka, was cited by him. The Court finds that in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar and Anr., the proposition enunciated by this Court in the case of A V. Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act envisages certain restrictions in the matter of grant of bail to an accused who is allegedly involved in commission of any offence under the Act. Its material portion is extracted below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) .....</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. As indicated, the offence under Section 20(b) alleged against petitioners is made punishable under Sub-clause (i) of Section 20(b) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000/-. Interpreting the words 'punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act' occurring in Sub-clause (ii) of Section 37(1) of the Act asexcluding the offences which are made punishable under the Act with imprisonment extending upto five years, the accused in the case of Sambhu Sonkar, supra, who were challenged for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Act, had been granted bail by the High Court of Calcutta. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the aforestated provisions of the Act are attracted to the offence punishable under Section 20(b) and, therefore, the view taken by Calcutta High Court was not legally correct. Thus, the question which arose for consideration of the Supreme Court in that case was: 'The limited question involved in this appeal is whether the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the Narcomic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act') would be applicable in a case where offence is punishable under Section 20(b)(i) for 'possessing gania'. Referring to its earlier decision in Maktool Singh v. State of Punjab, the said question was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the decision of this Court in A.V. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Nextly it was contended by Mr. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for petitioners, that as the total quantity of ganja that was found in possession of A. 1 being 60 grams only, it constituted 'small quantity' within the meaning of Section 27 of the N.D.P.S. Act, for which it provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. But then, it is not in dispute, as has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge in his said order that this accused is involved in another offence under the Act which is registered against him by the concerned authority in Special Case (NDPS) No. 3 of 1998. Therefore, he is disentitled to the remedy of bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Mr. Chandrashekar further pressed a point for my consideration that, as indicated in the seizure panchanama, the said Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted search of both petitioners did not inform either of them that, in law, they had the right to get their persons searched by a Magistrate also, which was an imperative requirement of law under Section 42 of the Act. On this count, Mr. Chandrashekar maintained that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. He proposed to rely on a decision of Delhi High Court in Vidyawati v. State. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act. Therefore, this point, I find is of little avail to them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002CriLJ101; ILR2001KAR5205; 2002(2)KarLJ76',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
			'sub' => 'Criminal;Narcotics',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '370808',
		(int) 1 => 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'K P Sadath and anr Vs State by Virajapet Town Police Station Kodagu District - Citation 370808 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '370808',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/50702/narcotic-drugs-and-psychotropic-substances-act-1985-complete-act">Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> - Sections 20, 37, 37(1) and 42; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 51 and 439 ',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Petition No. 2383 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr. Vs. State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
		'casenote' => ' - Section 16: [K.Ramanna,J] Suit for specific performance of agreement for sale of immovable property Time was essence of contract -Plaintiff purchaser had not taken any steps for furtherance of agreement for a period of 1 year  Held, It shows purchaser was not willing and ready to perform his contract. Also, no material was produced to prove that defendant sought to extend stipulated time for one year to execute regular sale deed. Breach of contract committed by purchaser. Plaintiff is not entitled to relief. 

Section 22: [K.Ramanna,J] Refund earnest money  Agreement for sale of immovable property - Breach of contract by purchaser  Held, Defendant-seller is not entitled to forfeit earnest money in the absence of forfeiture clause in agreement. However earnest money was allowed to be refunded @ 6% interest.  -  Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law. --(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-(a) .(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.M. Chandrashekar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'N.P. Sinigri, State Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-09-26',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Mohamed Anwar, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Mohamed Anwar, J.</p><p>1. Heard both sides.</p><p>2. Both these petitioners, who are arraigned as A. 2 and A. 1 respectively, in Crime No. 109 of 2001 of the respondent-Police Station for the offence under Section 20(b) of the <a>Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> ('N.D.P.S. Act'), have approached this Court with their petition under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. when their simitar application for bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 9-7-2001.</p><p>3. The prosecution case is that, on 22-6-2001, at about 10.30 a.m., at Meenupete of Virajapet City in Kodagu District, both the petitioners were found present when the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Virajapet appeared there with his party on receiving credible information that petitioners were in possession of ganja. Then the person of A. 1, who is petitioner 2 herein, was searched. He was found in possession of 12 packets of ganja weighing 5 grams each, totalling 60 grams, while A2, petitioner 1 herein, was found in possession of 11 packets of ganja weighing 50 grams each totalling 550 grams. Then this contraband came to be duly seized by the Deputy Superintendent of Police under a panchanama in the presence of panchas and the said case was booked against them.</p><p>4. Learned Counsel for petitioners initially contended that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act being the imprisonment extending upto 5 years, the rigours of the provisions of Section 37(1)(b) in the matter of bail will not be attracted and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. In support of this contention, a Single Bench decision of this Court in A.V. Dharmasingh v. State of Karnataka, was cited by him. The Court finds that in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar and Anr., the proposition enunciated by this Court in the case of A V. Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law.</p><p>5. Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act envisages certain restrictions in the matter of grant of bail to an accused who is allegedly involved in commission of any offence under the Act. Its material portion is extracted below:</p><p>'37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-</p><p> (a) .....</p><p> (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-</p><p> (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and</p><p> (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.</p><p> (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail'. </p><p>6. As indicated, the offence under Section 20(b) alleged against petitioners is made punishable under Sub-clause (i) of Section 20(b) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000/-. Interpreting the words 'punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act' occurring in Sub-clause (ii) of Section 37(1) of the Act asexcluding the offences which are made punishable under the Act with imprisonment extending upto five years, the accused in the case of Sambhu Sonkar, supra, who were challenged for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Act, had been granted bail by the High Court of Calcutta. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the aforestated provisions of the Act are attracted to the offence punishable under Section 20(b) and, therefore, the view taken by Calcutta High Court was not legally correct. Thus, the question which arose for consideration of the Supreme Court in that case was: 'The limited question involved in this appeal is whether the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the Narcomic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act') would be applicable in a case where offence is punishable under Section 20(b)(i) for 'possessing gania'. Referring to its earlier decision in Maktool Singh v. State of Punjab, the said question was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the decision of this Court in A.V. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law.</p><p>7. Nextly it was contended by Mr. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for petitioners, that as the total quantity of ganja that was found in possession of A. 1 being 60 grams only, it constituted 'small quantity' within the meaning of Section 27 of the N.D.P.S. Act, for which it provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. But then, it is not in dispute, as has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge in his said order that this accused is involved in another offence under the Act which is registered against him by the concerned authority in Special Case (NDPS) No. 3 of 1998. Therefore, he is disentitled to the remedy of bail.</p><p>8. Mr. Chandrashekar further pressed a point for my consideration that, as indicated in the seizure panchanama, the said Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted search of both petitioners did not inform either of them that, in law, they had the right to get their persons searched by a Magistrate also, which was an imperative requirement of law under Section 42 of the Act. On this count, Mr. Chandrashekar maintained that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. He proposed to rely on a decision of Delhi High Court in Vidyawati v. State. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act. Therefore, this point, I find is of little avail to them.</p><p>9. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002CriLJ101; ILR2001KAR5205; 2002(2)KarLJ76',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
		'sub' => 'Criminal;Narcotics',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '370808',
	(int) 1 => 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/370808/k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Mohamed Anwar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard both sides.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Both these petitioners, who are arraigned as A. 2 and A. 1 respectively, in Crime No. 109 of 2001 of the respondent-Police Station for the offence under Section 20(b) of the <a>Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> ('N.D.P.S. Act'), have approached this Court with their petition under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. when their simitar application for bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 9-7-2001.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The prosecution case is that, on 22-6-2001, at about 10.30 a.m., at Meenupete of Virajapet City in Kodagu District, both the petitioners were found present when the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Virajapet appeared there with his party on receiving credible information that petitioners were in possession of ganja. Then the person of A. 1, who is petitioner 2 herein, was searched. He was found in possession of 12 packets of ganja weighing 5 grams each, totalling 60 grams, while A2, petitioner 1 herein, was found in possession of 11 packets of ganja weighing 50 grams each totalling 550 grams. Then this contraband came to be duly seized by the Deputy Superintendent of Police under a panchanama in the presence of panchas and the said case was booked against them.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned Counsel for petitioners initially contended that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act being the imprisonment extending upto 5 years, the rigours of the provisions of Section 37(1)(b) in the matter of bail will not be attracted and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. In support of this contention, a Single Bench decision of this Court in A.V. Dharmasingh v. State of Karnataka, was cited by him. The Court finds that in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar and Anr., the proposition enunciated by this Court in the case of A V. Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act envisages certain restrictions in the matter of grant of bail to an accused who is allegedly involved in commission of any offence under the Act. Its material portion is extracted below:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (a) .....',
	(int) 8 => '<p> (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-',
	(int) 9 => '<p> (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail'. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>6. As indicated, the offence under Section 20(b) alleged against petitioners is made punishable under Sub-clause (i) of Section 20(b) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000/-. Interpreting the words 'punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act' occurring in Sub-clause (ii) of Section 37(1) of the Act asexcluding the offences which are made punishable under the Act with imprisonment extending upto five years, the accused in the case of Sambhu Sonkar, supra, who were challenged for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Act, had been granted bail by the High Court of Calcutta. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the aforestated provisions of the Act are attracted to the offence punishable under Section 20(b) and, therefore, the view taken by Calcutta High Court was not legally correct. Thus, the question which arose for consideration of the Supreme Court in that case was: 'The limited question involved in this appeal is whether the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the Narcomic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act') would be applicable in a case where offence is punishable under Section 20(b)(i) for 'possessing gania'. Referring to its earlier decision in Maktool Singh v. State of Punjab, the said question was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the decision of this Court in A.V. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>7. Nextly it was contended by Mr. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for petitioners, that as the total quantity of ganja that was found in possession of A. 1 being 60 grams only, it constituted 'small quantity' within the meaning of Section 27 of the N.D.P.S. Act, for which it provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. But then, it is not in dispute, as has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge in his said order that this accused is involved in another offence under the Act which is registered against him by the concerned authority in Special Case (NDPS) No. 3 of 1998. Therefore, he is disentitled to the remedy of bail.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>8. Mr. Chandrashekar further pressed a point for my consideration that, as indicated in the seizure panchanama, the said Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted search of both petitioners did not inform either of them that, in law, they had the right to get their persons searched by a Magistrate also, which was an imperative requirement of law under Section 42 of the Act. On this count, Mr. Chandrashekar maintained that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. He proposed to rely on a decision of Delhi High Court in Vidyawati v. State. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act. Therefore, this point, I find is of little avail to them.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>9. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 16 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 17
$i = (int) 10
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'K P Sadath and anr Vs State by Virajapet Town Police Station Kodagu District - Citation 370808 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '370808',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/50702/narcotic-drugs-and-psychotropic-substances-act-1985-complete-act">Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> - Sections 20, 37, 37(1) and 42; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 51 and 439 ',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Petition No. 2383 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr. Vs. State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
			'casenote' => ' - Section 16: [K.Ramanna,J] Suit for specific performance of agreement for sale of immovable property Time was essence of contract -Plaintiff purchaser had not taken any steps for furtherance of agreement for a period of 1 year  Held, It shows purchaser was not willing and ready to perform his contract. Also, no material was produced to prove that defendant sought to extend stipulated time for one year to execute regular sale deed. Breach of contract committed by purchaser. Plaintiff is not entitled to relief. 

Section 22: [K.Ramanna,J] Refund earnest money  Agreement for sale of immovable property - Breach of contract by purchaser  Held, Defendant-seller is not entitled to forfeit earnest money in the absence of forfeiture clause in agreement. However earnest money was allowed to be refunded @ 6% interest.  -  Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law. --(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-(a) .(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.M. Chandrashekar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'N.P. Sinigri, State Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-09-26',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Mohamed Anwar, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Mohamed Anwar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard both sides.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Both these petitioners, who are arraigned as A. 2 and A. 1 respectively, in Crime No. 109 of 2001 of the respondent-Police Station for the offence under Section 20(b) of the <a href="/act/50702/narcotic-drugs-and-psychotropic-substances-act-1985-complete-act">Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> ('N.D.P.S. Act'), have approached this Court with their petition under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. when their simitar application for bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 9-7-2001.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The prosecution case is that, on 22-6-2001, at about 10.30 a.m., at Meenupete of Virajapet City in Kodagu District, both the petitioners were found present when the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Virajapet appeared there with his party on receiving credible information that petitioners were in possession of ganja. Then the person of A. 1, who is petitioner 2 herein, was searched. He was found in possession of 12 packets of ganja weighing 5 grams each, totalling 60 grams, while A2, petitioner 1 herein, was found in possession of 11 packets of ganja weighing 50 grams each totalling 550 grams. Then this contraband came to be duly seized by the Deputy Superintendent of Police under a panchanama in the presence of panchas and the said case was booked against them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned Counsel for petitioners initially contended that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act being the imprisonment extending upto 5 years, the rigours of the provisions of Section 37(1)(b) in the matter of bail will not be attracted and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. In support of this contention, a Single Bench decision of this Court in A.V. Dharmasingh v. State of Karnataka, was cited by him. The Court finds that in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar and Anr., the proposition enunciated by this Court in the case of A V. Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act envisages certain restrictions in the matter of grant of bail to an accused who is allegedly involved in commission of any offence under the Act. Its material portion is extracted below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) .....</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. As indicated, the offence under Section 20(b) alleged against petitioners is made punishable under Sub-clause (i) of Section 20(b) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000/-. Interpreting the words 'punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act' occurring in Sub-clause (ii) of Section 37(1) of the Act asexcluding the offences which are made punishable under the Act with imprisonment extending upto five years, the accused in the case of Sambhu Sonkar, supra, who were challenged for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Act, had been granted bail by the High Court of Calcutta. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the aforestated provisions of the Act are attracted to the offence punishable under Section 20(b) and, therefore, the view taken by Calcutta High Court was not legally correct. Thus, the question which arose for consideration of the Supreme Court in that case was: 'The limited question involved in this appeal is whether the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the Narcomic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act') would be applicable in a case where offence is punishable under Section 20(b)(i) for 'possessing gania'. Referring to its earlier decision in Maktool Singh v. State of Punjab, the said question was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the decision of this Court in A.V. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Nextly it was contended by Mr. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for petitioners, that as the total quantity of ganja that was found in possession of A. 1 being 60 grams only, it constituted 'small quantity' within the meaning of Section 27 of the N.D.P.S. Act, for which it provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. But then, it is not in dispute, as has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge in his said order that this accused is involved in another offence under the Act which is registered against him by the concerned authority in Special Case (NDPS) No. 3 of 1998. Therefore, he is disentitled to the remedy of bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Mr. Chandrashekar further pressed a point for my consideration that, as indicated in the seizure panchanama, the said Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted search of both petitioners did not inform either of them that, in law, they had the right to get their persons searched by a Magistrate also, which was an imperative requirement of law under Section 42 of the Act. On this count, Mr. Chandrashekar maintained that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. He proposed to rely on a decision of Delhi High Court in Vidyawati v. State. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act. Therefore, this point, I find is of little avail to them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002CriLJ101; ILR2001KAR5205; 2002(2)KarLJ76',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
			'sub' => 'Criminal;Narcotics',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '370808',
		(int) 1 => 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'K P Sadath and anr Vs State by Virajapet Town Police Station Kodagu District - Citation 370808 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '370808',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/50702/narcotic-drugs-and-psychotropic-substances-act-1985-complete-act">Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> - Sections 20, 37, 37(1) and 42; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 51 and 439 ',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Petition No. 2383 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr. Vs. State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
		'casenote' => ' - Section 16: [K.Ramanna,J] Suit for specific performance of agreement for sale of immovable property Time was essence of contract -Plaintiff purchaser had not taken any steps for furtherance of agreement for a period of 1 year  Held, It shows purchaser was not willing and ready to perform his contract. Also, no material was produced to prove that defendant sought to extend stipulated time for one year to execute regular sale deed. Breach of contract committed by purchaser. Plaintiff is not entitled to relief. 

Section 22: [K.Ramanna,J] Refund earnest money  Agreement for sale of immovable property - Breach of contract by purchaser  Held, Defendant-seller is not entitled to forfeit earnest money in the absence of forfeiture clause in agreement. However earnest money was allowed to be refunded @ 6% interest.  -  Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law. --(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-(a) .(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.M. Chandrashekar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'N.P. Sinigri, State Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-09-26',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Mohamed Anwar, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Mohamed Anwar, J.</p><p>1. Heard both sides.</p><p>2. Both these petitioners, who are arraigned as A. 2 and A. 1 respectively, in Crime No. 109 of 2001 of the respondent-Police Station for the offence under Section 20(b) of the <a>Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> ('N.D.P.S. Act'), have approached this Court with their petition under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. when their simitar application for bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 9-7-2001.</p><p>3. The prosecution case is that, on 22-6-2001, at about 10.30 a.m., at Meenupete of Virajapet City in Kodagu District, both the petitioners were found present when the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Virajapet appeared there with his party on receiving credible information that petitioners were in possession of ganja. Then the person of A. 1, who is petitioner 2 herein, was searched. He was found in possession of 12 packets of ganja weighing 5 grams each, totalling 60 grams, while A2, petitioner 1 herein, was found in possession of 11 packets of ganja weighing 50 grams each totalling 550 grams. Then this contraband came to be duly seized by the Deputy Superintendent of Police under a panchanama in the presence of panchas and the said case was booked against them.</p><p>4. Learned Counsel for petitioners initially contended that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act being the imprisonment extending upto 5 years, the rigours of the provisions of Section 37(1)(b) in the matter of bail will not be attracted and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. In support of this contention, a Single Bench decision of this Court in A.V. Dharmasingh v. State of Karnataka, was cited by him. The Court finds that in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar and Anr., the proposition enunciated by this Court in the case of A V. Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law.</p><p>5. Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act envisages certain restrictions in the matter of grant of bail to an accused who is allegedly involved in commission of any offence under the Act. Its material portion is extracted below:</p><p>'37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-</p><p> (a) .....</p><p> (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-</p><p> (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and</p><p> (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.</p><p> (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail'. </p><p>6. As indicated, the offence under Section 20(b) alleged against petitioners is made punishable under Sub-clause (i) of Section 20(b) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000/-. Interpreting the words 'punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act' occurring in Sub-clause (ii) of Section 37(1) of the Act asexcluding the offences which are made punishable under the Act with imprisonment extending upto five years, the accused in the case of Sambhu Sonkar, supra, who were challenged for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Act, had been granted bail by the High Court of Calcutta. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the aforestated provisions of the Act are attracted to the offence punishable under Section 20(b) and, therefore, the view taken by Calcutta High Court was not legally correct. Thus, the question which arose for consideration of the Supreme Court in that case was: 'The limited question involved in this appeal is whether the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the Narcomic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act') would be applicable in a case where offence is punishable under Section 20(b)(i) for 'possessing gania'. Referring to its earlier decision in Maktool Singh v. State of Punjab, the said question was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the decision of this Court in A.V. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law.</p><p>7. Nextly it was contended by Mr. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for petitioners, that as the total quantity of ganja that was found in possession of A. 1 being 60 grams only, it constituted 'small quantity' within the meaning of Section 27 of the N.D.P.S. Act, for which it provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. But then, it is not in dispute, as has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge in his said order that this accused is involved in another offence under the Act which is registered against him by the concerned authority in Special Case (NDPS) No. 3 of 1998. Therefore, he is disentitled to the remedy of bail.</p><p>8. Mr. Chandrashekar further pressed a point for my consideration that, as indicated in the seizure panchanama, the said Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted search of both petitioners did not inform either of them that, in law, they had the right to get their persons searched by a Magistrate also, which was an imperative requirement of law under Section 42 of the Act. On this count, Mr. Chandrashekar maintained that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. He proposed to rely on a decision of Delhi High Court in Vidyawati v. State. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act. Therefore, this point, I find is of little avail to them.</p><p>9. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002CriLJ101; ILR2001KAR5205; 2002(2)KarLJ76',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
		'sub' => 'Criminal;Narcotics',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '370808',
	(int) 1 => 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/370808/k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Mohamed Anwar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard both sides.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Both these petitioners, who are arraigned as A. 2 and A. 1 respectively, in Crime No. 109 of 2001 of the respondent-Police Station for the offence under Section 20(b) of the <a>Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> ('N.D.P.S. Act'), have approached this Court with their petition under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. when their simitar application for bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 9-7-2001.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The prosecution case is that, on 22-6-2001, at about 10.30 a.m., at Meenupete of Virajapet City in Kodagu District, both the petitioners were found present when the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Virajapet appeared there with his party on receiving credible information that petitioners were in possession of ganja. Then the person of A. 1, who is petitioner 2 herein, was searched. He was found in possession of 12 packets of ganja weighing 5 grams each, totalling 60 grams, while A2, petitioner 1 herein, was found in possession of 11 packets of ganja weighing 50 grams each totalling 550 grams. Then this contraband came to be duly seized by the Deputy Superintendent of Police under a panchanama in the presence of panchas and the said case was booked against them.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned Counsel for petitioners initially contended that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act being the imprisonment extending upto 5 years, the rigours of the provisions of Section 37(1)(b) in the matter of bail will not be attracted and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. In support of this contention, a Single Bench decision of this Court in A.V. Dharmasingh v. State of Karnataka, was cited by him. The Court finds that in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar and Anr., the proposition enunciated by this Court in the case of A V. Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act envisages certain restrictions in the matter of grant of bail to an accused who is allegedly involved in commission of any offence under the Act. Its material portion is extracted below:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (a) .....',
	(int) 8 => '<p> (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-',
	(int) 9 => '<p> (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail'. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>6. As indicated, the offence under Section 20(b) alleged against petitioners is made punishable under Sub-clause (i) of Section 20(b) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000/-. Interpreting the words 'punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act' occurring in Sub-clause (ii) of Section 37(1) of the Act asexcluding the offences which are made punishable under the Act with imprisonment extending upto five years, the accused in the case of Sambhu Sonkar, supra, who were challenged for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Act, had been granted bail by the High Court of Calcutta. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the aforestated provisions of the Act are attracted to the offence punishable under Section 20(b) and, therefore, the view taken by Calcutta High Court was not legally correct. Thus, the question which arose for consideration of the Supreme Court in that case was: 'The limited question involved in this appeal is whether the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the Narcomic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act') would be applicable in a case where offence is punishable under Section 20(b)(i) for 'possessing gania'. Referring to its earlier decision in Maktool Singh v. State of Punjab, the said question was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the decision of this Court in A.V. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>7. Nextly it was contended by Mr. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for petitioners, that as the total quantity of ganja that was found in possession of A. 1 being 60 grams only, it constituted 'small quantity' within the meaning of Section 27 of the N.D.P.S. Act, for which it provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. But then, it is not in dispute, as has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge in his said order that this accused is involved in another offence under the Act which is registered against him by the concerned authority in Special Case (NDPS) No. 3 of 1998. Therefore, he is disentitled to the remedy of bail.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>8. Mr. Chandrashekar further pressed a point for my consideration that, as indicated in the seizure panchanama, the said Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted search of both petitioners did not inform either of them that, in law, they had the right to get their persons searched by a Magistrate also, which was an imperative requirement of law under Section 42 of the Act. On this count, Mr. Chandrashekar maintained that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. He proposed to rely on a decision of Delhi High Court in Vidyawati v. State. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act. Therefore, this point, I find is of little avail to them.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>9. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 16 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 17
$i = (int) 11
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail'.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'K P Sadath and anr Vs State by Virajapet Town Police Station Kodagu District - Citation 370808 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '370808',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/50702/narcotic-drugs-and-psychotropic-substances-act-1985-complete-act">Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> - Sections 20, 37, 37(1) and 42; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 51 and 439 ',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Petition No. 2383 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr. Vs. State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
			'casenote' => ' - Section 16: [K.Ramanna,J] Suit for specific performance of agreement for sale of immovable property Time was essence of contract -Plaintiff purchaser had not taken any steps for furtherance of agreement for a period of 1 year  Held, It shows purchaser was not willing and ready to perform his contract. Also, no material was produced to prove that defendant sought to extend stipulated time for one year to execute regular sale deed. Breach of contract committed by purchaser. Plaintiff is not entitled to relief. 

Section 22: [K.Ramanna,J] Refund earnest money  Agreement for sale of immovable property - Breach of contract by purchaser  Held, Defendant-seller is not entitled to forfeit earnest money in the absence of forfeiture clause in agreement. However earnest money was allowed to be refunded @ 6% interest.  -  Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law. --(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-(a) .(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.M. Chandrashekar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'N.P. Sinigri, State Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-09-26',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Mohamed Anwar, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Mohamed Anwar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard both sides.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Both these petitioners, who are arraigned as A. 2 and A. 1 respectively, in Crime No. 109 of 2001 of the respondent-Police Station for the offence under Section 20(b) of the <a href="/act/50702/narcotic-drugs-and-psychotropic-substances-act-1985-complete-act">Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> ('N.D.P.S. Act'), have approached this Court with their petition under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. when their simitar application for bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 9-7-2001.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The prosecution case is that, on 22-6-2001, at about 10.30 a.m., at Meenupete of Virajapet City in Kodagu District, both the petitioners were found present when the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Virajapet appeared there with his party on receiving credible information that petitioners were in possession of ganja. Then the person of A. 1, who is petitioner 2 herein, was searched. He was found in possession of 12 packets of ganja weighing 5 grams each, totalling 60 grams, while A2, petitioner 1 herein, was found in possession of 11 packets of ganja weighing 50 grams each totalling 550 grams. Then this contraband came to be duly seized by the Deputy Superintendent of Police under a panchanama in the presence of panchas and the said case was booked against them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned Counsel for petitioners initially contended that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act being the imprisonment extending upto 5 years, the rigours of the provisions of Section 37(1)(b) in the matter of bail will not be attracted and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. In support of this contention, a Single Bench decision of this Court in A.V. Dharmasingh v. State of Karnataka, was cited by him. The Court finds that in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar and Anr., the proposition enunciated by this Court in the case of A V. Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act envisages certain restrictions in the matter of grant of bail to an accused who is allegedly involved in commission of any offence under the Act. Its material portion is extracted below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) .....</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. As indicated, the offence under Section 20(b) alleged against petitioners is made punishable under Sub-clause (i) of Section 20(b) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000/-. Interpreting the words 'punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act' occurring in Sub-clause (ii) of Section 37(1) of the Act asexcluding the offences which are made punishable under the Act with imprisonment extending upto five years, the accused in the case of Sambhu Sonkar, supra, who were challenged for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Act, had been granted bail by the High Court of Calcutta. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the aforestated provisions of the Act are attracted to the offence punishable under Section 20(b) and, therefore, the view taken by Calcutta High Court was not legally correct. Thus, the question which arose for consideration of the Supreme Court in that case was: 'The limited question involved in this appeal is whether the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the Narcomic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act') would be applicable in a case where offence is punishable under Section 20(b)(i) for 'possessing gania'. Referring to its earlier decision in Maktool Singh v. State of Punjab, the said question was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the decision of this Court in A.V. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Nextly it was contended by Mr. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for petitioners, that as the total quantity of ganja that was found in possession of A. 1 being 60 grams only, it constituted 'small quantity' within the meaning of Section 27 of the N.D.P.S. Act, for which it provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. But then, it is not in dispute, as has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge in his said order that this accused is involved in another offence under the Act which is registered against him by the concerned authority in Special Case (NDPS) No. 3 of 1998. Therefore, he is disentitled to the remedy of bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Mr. Chandrashekar further pressed a point for my consideration that, as indicated in the seizure panchanama, the said Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted search of both petitioners did not inform either of them that, in law, they had the right to get their persons searched by a Magistrate also, which was an imperative requirement of law under Section 42 of the Act. On this count, Mr. Chandrashekar maintained that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. He proposed to rely on a decision of Delhi High Court in Vidyawati v. State. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act. Therefore, this point, I find is of little avail to them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002CriLJ101; ILR2001KAR5205; 2002(2)KarLJ76',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
			'sub' => 'Criminal;Narcotics',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '370808',
		(int) 1 => 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'K P Sadath and anr Vs State by Virajapet Town Police Station Kodagu District - Citation 370808 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '370808',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/50702/narcotic-drugs-and-psychotropic-substances-act-1985-complete-act">Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> - Sections 20, 37, 37(1) and 42; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 51 and 439 ',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Petition No. 2383 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr. Vs. State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
		'casenote' => ' - Section 16: [K.Ramanna,J] Suit for specific performance of agreement for sale of immovable property Time was essence of contract -Plaintiff purchaser had not taken any steps for furtherance of agreement for a period of 1 year  Held, It shows purchaser was not willing and ready to perform his contract. Also, no material was produced to prove that defendant sought to extend stipulated time for one year to execute regular sale deed. Breach of contract committed by purchaser. Plaintiff is not entitled to relief. 

Section 22: [K.Ramanna,J] Refund earnest money  Agreement for sale of immovable property - Breach of contract by purchaser  Held, Defendant-seller is not entitled to forfeit earnest money in the absence of forfeiture clause in agreement. However earnest money was allowed to be refunded @ 6% interest.  -  Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law. --(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-(a) .(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.M. Chandrashekar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'N.P. Sinigri, State Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-09-26',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Mohamed Anwar, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Mohamed Anwar, J.</p><p>1. Heard both sides.</p><p>2. Both these petitioners, who are arraigned as A. 2 and A. 1 respectively, in Crime No. 109 of 2001 of the respondent-Police Station for the offence under Section 20(b) of the <a>Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> ('N.D.P.S. Act'), have approached this Court with their petition under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. when their simitar application for bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 9-7-2001.</p><p>3. The prosecution case is that, on 22-6-2001, at about 10.30 a.m., at Meenupete of Virajapet City in Kodagu District, both the petitioners were found present when the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Virajapet appeared there with his party on receiving credible information that petitioners were in possession of ganja. Then the person of A. 1, who is petitioner 2 herein, was searched. He was found in possession of 12 packets of ganja weighing 5 grams each, totalling 60 grams, while A2, petitioner 1 herein, was found in possession of 11 packets of ganja weighing 50 grams each totalling 550 grams. Then this contraband came to be duly seized by the Deputy Superintendent of Police under a panchanama in the presence of panchas and the said case was booked against them.</p><p>4. Learned Counsel for petitioners initially contended that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act being the imprisonment extending upto 5 years, the rigours of the provisions of Section 37(1)(b) in the matter of bail will not be attracted and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. In support of this contention, a Single Bench decision of this Court in A.V. Dharmasingh v. State of Karnataka, was cited by him. The Court finds that in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar and Anr., the proposition enunciated by this Court in the case of A V. Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law.</p><p>5. Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act envisages certain restrictions in the matter of grant of bail to an accused who is allegedly involved in commission of any offence under the Act. Its material portion is extracted below:</p><p>'37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-</p><p> (a) .....</p><p> (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-</p><p> (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and</p><p> (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.</p><p> (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail'. </p><p>6. As indicated, the offence under Section 20(b) alleged against petitioners is made punishable under Sub-clause (i) of Section 20(b) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000/-. Interpreting the words 'punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act' occurring in Sub-clause (ii) of Section 37(1) of the Act asexcluding the offences which are made punishable under the Act with imprisonment extending upto five years, the accused in the case of Sambhu Sonkar, supra, who were challenged for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Act, had been granted bail by the High Court of Calcutta. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the aforestated provisions of the Act are attracted to the offence punishable under Section 20(b) and, therefore, the view taken by Calcutta High Court was not legally correct. Thus, the question which arose for consideration of the Supreme Court in that case was: 'The limited question involved in this appeal is whether the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the Narcomic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act') would be applicable in a case where offence is punishable under Section 20(b)(i) for 'possessing gania'. Referring to its earlier decision in Maktool Singh v. State of Punjab, the said question was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the decision of this Court in A.V. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law.</p><p>7. Nextly it was contended by Mr. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for petitioners, that as the total quantity of ganja that was found in possession of A. 1 being 60 grams only, it constituted 'small quantity' within the meaning of Section 27 of the N.D.P.S. Act, for which it provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. But then, it is not in dispute, as has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge in his said order that this accused is involved in another offence under the Act which is registered against him by the concerned authority in Special Case (NDPS) No. 3 of 1998. Therefore, he is disentitled to the remedy of bail.</p><p>8. Mr. Chandrashekar further pressed a point for my consideration that, as indicated in the seizure panchanama, the said Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted search of both petitioners did not inform either of them that, in law, they had the right to get their persons searched by a Magistrate also, which was an imperative requirement of law under Section 42 of the Act. On this count, Mr. Chandrashekar maintained that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. He proposed to rely on a decision of Delhi High Court in Vidyawati v. State. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act. Therefore, this point, I find is of little avail to them.</p><p>9. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002CriLJ101; ILR2001KAR5205; 2002(2)KarLJ76',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
		'sub' => 'Criminal;Narcotics',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '370808',
	(int) 1 => 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/370808/k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Mohamed Anwar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard both sides.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Both these petitioners, who are arraigned as A. 2 and A. 1 respectively, in Crime No. 109 of 2001 of the respondent-Police Station for the offence under Section 20(b) of the <a>Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> ('N.D.P.S. Act'), have approached this Court with their petition under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. when their simitar application for bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 9-7-2001.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The prosecution case is that, on 22-6-2001, at about 10.30 a.m., at Meenupete of Virajapet City in Kodagu District, both the petitioners were found present when the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Virajapet appeared there with his party on receiving credible information that petitioners were in possession of ganja. Then the person of A. 1, who is petitioner 2 herein, was searched. He was found in possession of 12 packets of ganja weighing 5 grams each, totalling 60 grams, while A2, petitioner 1 herein, was found in possession of 11 packets of ganja weighing 50 grams each totalling 550 grams. Then this contraband came to be duly seized by the Deputy Superintendent of Police under a panchanama in the presence of panchas and the said case was booked against them.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned Counsel for petitioners initially contended that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act being the imprisonment extending upto 5 years, the rigours of the provisions of Section 37(1)(b) in the matter of bail will not be attracted and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. In support of this contention, a Single Bench decision of this Court in A.V. Dharmasingh v. State of Karnataka, was cited by him. The Court finds that in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar and Anr., the proposition enunciated by this Court in the case of A V. Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act envisages certain restrictions in the matter of grant of bail to an accused who is allegedly involved in commission of any offence under the Act. Its material portion is extracted below:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (a) .....',
	(int) 8 => '<p> (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-',
	(int) 9 => '<p> (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail'. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>6. As indicated, the offence under Section 20(b) alleged against petitioners is made punishable under Sub-clause (i) of Section 20(b) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000/-. Interpreting the words 'punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act' occurring in Sub-clause (ii) of Section 37(1) of the Act asexcluding the offences which are made punishable under the Act with imprisonment extending upto five years, the accused in the case of Sambhu Sonkar, supra, who were challenged for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Act, had been granted bail by the High Court of Calcutta. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the aforestated provisions of the Act are attracted to the offence punishable under Section 20(b) and, therefore, the view taken by Calcutta High Court was not legally correct. Thus, the question which arose for consideration of the Supreme Court in that case was: 'The limited question involved in this appeal is whether the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the Narcomic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act') would be applicable in a case where offence is punishable under Section 20(b)(i) for 'possessing gania'. Referring to its earlier decision in Maktool Singh v. State of Punjab, the said question was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the decision of this Court in A.V. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>7. Nextly it was contended by Mr. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for petitioners, that as the total quantity of ganja that was found in possession of A. 1 being 60 grams only, it constituted 'small quantity' within the meaning of Section 27 of the N.D.P.S. Act, for which it provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. But then, it is not in dispute, as has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge in his said order that this accused is involved in another offence under the Act which is registered against him by the concerned authority in Special Case (NDPS) No. 3 of 1998. Therefore, he is disentitled to the remedy of bail.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>8. Mr. Chandrashekar further pressed a point for my consideration that, as indicated in the seizure panchanama, the said Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted search of both petitioners did not inform either of them that, in law, they had the right to get their persons searched by a Magistrate also, which was an imperative requirement of law under Section 42 of the Act. On this count, Mr. Chandrashekar maintained that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. He proposed to rely on a decision of Delhi High Court in Vidyawati v. State. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act. Therefore, this point, I find is of little avail to them.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>9. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 16 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 17
$i = (int) 12
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

6. As indicated, the offence under Section 20(b) alleged against petitioners is made punishable under Sub-clause (i) of Section 20(b) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000/-. Interpreting the words 'punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act' occurring in Sub-clause (ii) of Section 37(1) of the Act asexcluding the offences which are made punishable under the Act with imprisonment extending upto five years, the accused in the case of Sambhu Sonkar, supra, who were challenged for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Act, had been granted bail by the High Court of Calcutta. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the aforestated provisions of the Act are attracted to the offence punishable under Section 20(b) and, therefore, the view taken by Calcutta High Court was not legally correct. Thus, the question which arose for consideration of the Supreme Court in that case was: 'The limited question involved in this appeal is whether the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the Narcomic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act') would be applicable in a case where offence is punishable under Section 20(b)(i) for 'possessing gania'. Referring to its earlier decision in Maktool Singh v. State of Punjab, the said question was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the decision of this Court in A.V. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'K P Sadath and anr Vs State by Virajapet Town Police Station Kodagu District - Citation 370808 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '370808',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/50702/narcotic-drugs-and-psychotropic-substances-act-1985-complete-act">Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> - Sections 20, 37, 37(1) and 42; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 51 and 439 ',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Petition No. 2383 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr. Vs. State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
			'casenote' => ' - Section 16: [K.Ramanna,J] Suit for specific performance of agreement for sale of immovable property Time was essence of contract -Plaintiff purchaser had not taken any steps for furtherance of agreement for a period of 1 year  Held, It shows purchaser was not willing and ready to perform his contract. Also, no material was produced to prove that defendant sought to extend stipulated time for one year to execute regular sale deed. Breach of contract committed by purchaser. Plaintiff is not entitled to relief. 

Section 22: [K.Ramanna,J] Refund earnest money  Agreement for sale of immovable property - Breach of contract by purchaser  Held, Defendant-seller is not entitled to forfeit earnest money in the absence of forfeiture clause in agreement. However earnest money was allowed to be refunded @ 6% interest.  -  Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law. --(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-(a) .(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.M. Chandrashekar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'N.P. Sinigri, State Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-09-26',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Mohamed Anwar, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Mohamed Anwar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard both sides.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Both these petitioners, who are arraigned as A. 2 and A. 1 respectively, in Crime No. 109 of 2001 of the respondent-Police Station for the offence under Section 20(b) of the <a href="/act/50702/narcotic-drugs-and-psychotropic-substances-act-1985-complete-act">Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> ('N.D.P.S. Act'), have approached this Court with their petition under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. when their simitar application for bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 9-7-2001.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The prosecution case is that, on 22-6-2001, at about 10.30 a.m., at Meenupete of Virajapet City in Kodagu District, both the petitioners were found present when the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Virajapet appeared there with his party on receiving credible information that petitioners were in possession of ganja. Then the person of A. 1, who is petitioner 2 herein, was searched. He was found in possession of 12 packets of ganja weighing 5 grams each, totalling 60 grams, while A2, petitioner 1 herein, was found in possession of 11 packets of ganja weighing 50 grams each totalling 550 grams. Then this contraband came to be duly seized by the Deputy Superintendent of Police under a panchanama in the presence of panchas and the said case was booked against them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned Counsel for petitioners initially contended that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act being the imprisonment extending upto 5 years, the rigours of the provisions of Section 37(1)(b) in the matter of bail will not be attracted and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. In support of this contention, a Single Bench decision of this Court in A.V. Dharmasingh v. State of Karnataka, was cited by him. The Court finds that in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar and Anr., the proposition enunciated by this Court in the case of A V. Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act envisages certain restrictions in the matter of grant of bail to an accused who is allegedly involved in commission of any offence under the Act. Its material portion is extracted below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) .....</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. As indicated, the offence under Section 20(b) alleged against petitioners is made punishable under Sub-clause (i) of Section 20(b) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000/-. Interpreting the words 'punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act' occurring in Sub-clause (ii) of Section 37(1) of the Act asexcluding the offences which are made punishable under the Act with imprisonment extending upto five years, the accused in the case of Sambhu Sonkar, supra, who were challenged for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Act, had been granted bail by the High Court of Calcutta. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the aforestated provisions of the Act are attracted to the offence punishable under Section 20(b) and, therefore, the view taken by Calcutta High Court was not legally correct. Thus, the question which arose for consideration of the Supreme Court in that case was: 'The limited question involved in this appeal is whether the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the Narcomic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act') would be applicable in a case where offence is punishable under Section 20(b)(i) for 'possessing gania'. Referring to its earlier decision in Maktool Singh v. State of Punjab, the said question was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the decision of this Court in A.V. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Nextly it was contended by Mr. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for petitioners, that as the total quantity of ganja that was found in possession of A. 1 being 60 grams only, it constituted 'small quantity' within the meaning of Section 27 of the N.D.P.S. Act, for which it provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. But then, it is not in dispute, as has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge in his said order that this accused is involved in another offence under the Act which is registered against him by the concerned authority in Special Case (NDPS) No. 3 of 1998. Therefore, he is disentitled to the remedy of bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Mr. Chandrashekar further pressed a point for my consideration that, as indicated in the seizure panchanama, the said Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted search of both petitioners did not inform either of them that, in law, they had the right to get their persons searched by a Magistrate also, which was an imperative requirement of law under Section 42 of the Act. On this count, Mr. Chandrashekar maintained that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. He proposed to rely on a decision of Delhi High Court in Vidyawati v. State. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act. Therefore, this point, I find is of little avail to them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002CriLJ101; ILR2001KAR5205; 2002(2)KarLJ76',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
			'sub' => 'Criminal;Narcotics',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '370808',
		(int) 1 => 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'K P Sadath and anr Vs State by Virajapet Town Police Station Kodagu District - Citation 370808 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '370808',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/50702/narcotic-drugs-and-psychotropic-substances-act-1985-complete-act">Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> - Sections 20, 37, 37(1) and 42; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 51 and 439 ',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Petition No. 2383 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr. Vs. State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
		'casenote' => ' - Section 16: [K.Ramanna,J] Suit for specific performance of agreement for sale of immovable property Time was essence of contract -Plaintiff purchaser had not taken any steps for furtherance of agreement for a period of 1 year  Held, It shows purchaser was not willing and ready to perform his contract. Also, no material was produced to prove that defendant sought to extend stipulated time for one year to execute regular sale deed. Breach of contract committed by purchaser. Plaintiff is not entitled to relief. 

Section 22: [K.Ramanna,J] Refund earnest money  Agreement for sale of immovable property - Breach of contract by purchaser  Held, Defendant-seller is not entitled to forfeit earnest money in the absence of forfeiture clause in agreement. However earnest money was allowed to be refunded @ 6% interest.  -  Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law. --(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-(a) .(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.M. Chandrashekar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'N.P. Sinigri, State Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-09-26',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Mohamed Anwar, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Mohamed Anwar, J.</p><p>1. Heard both sides.</p><p>2. Both these petitioners, who are arraigned as A. 2 and A. 1 respectively, in Crime No. 109 of 2001 of the respondent-Police Station for the offence under Section 20(b) of the <a>Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> ('N.D.P.S. Act'), have approached this Court with their petition under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. when their simitar application for bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 9-7-2001.</p><p>3. The prosecution case is that, on 22-6-2001, at about 10.30 a.m., at Meenupete of Virajapet City in Kodagu District, both the petitioners were found present when the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Virajapet appeared there with his party on receiving credible information that petitioners were in possession of ganja. Then the person of A. 1, who is petitioner 2 herein, was searched. He was found in possession of 12 packets of ganja weighing 5 grams each, totalling 60 grams, while A2, petitioner 1 herein, was found in possession of 11 packets of ganja weighing 50 grams each totalling 550 grams. Then this contraband came to be duly seized by the Deputy Superintendent of Police under a panchanama in the presence of panchas and the said case was booked against them.</p><p>4. Learned Counsel for petitioners initially contended that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act being the imprisonment extending upto 5 years, the rigours of the provisions of Section 37(1)(b) in the matter of bail will not be attracted and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. In support of this contention, a Single Bench decision of this Court in A.V. Dharmasingh v. State of Karnataka, was cited by him. The Court finds that in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar and Anr., the proposition enunciated by this Court in the case of A V. Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law.</p><p>5. Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act envisages certain restrictions in the matter of grant of bail to an accused who is allegedly involved in commission of any offence under the Act. Its material portion is extracted below:</p><p>'37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-</p><p> (a) .....</p><p> (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-</p><p> (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and</p><p> (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.</p><p> (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail'. </p><p>6. As indicated, the offence under Section 20(b) alleged against petitioners is made punishable under Sub-clause (i) of Section 20(b) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000/-. Interpreting the words 'punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act' occurring in Sub-clause (ii) of Section 37(1) of the Act asexcluding the offences which are made punishable under the Act with imprisonment extending upto five years, the accused in the case of Sambhu Sonkar, supra, who were challenged for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Act, had been granted bail by the High Court of Calcutta. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the aforestated provisions of the Act are attracted to the offence punishable under Section 20(b) and, therefore, the view taken by Calcutta High Court was not legally correct. Thus, the question which arose for consideration of the Supreme Court in that case was: 'The limited question involved in this appeal is whether the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the Narcomic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act') would be applicable in a case where offence is punishable under Section 20(b)(i) for 'possessing gania'. Referring to its earlier decision in Maktool Singh v. State of Punjab, the said question was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the decision of this Court in A.V. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law.</p><p>7. Nextly it was contended by Mr. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for petitioners, that as the total quantity of ganja that was found in possession of A. 1 being 60 grams only, it constituted 'small quantity' within the meaning of Section 27 of the N.D.P.S. Act, for which it provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. But then, it is not in dispute, as has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge in his said order that this accused is involved in another offence under the Act which is registered against him by the concerned authority in Special Case (NDPS) No. 3 of 1998. Therefore, he is disentitled to the remedy of bail.</p><p>8. Mr. Chandrashekar further pressed a point for my consideration that, as indicated in the seizure panchanama, the said Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted search of both petitioners did not inform either of them that, in law, they had the right to get their persons searched by a Magistrate also, which was an imperative requirement of law under Section 42 of the Act. On this count, Mr. Chandrashekar maintained that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. He proposed to rely on a decision of Delhi High Court in Vidyawati v. State. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act. Therefore, this point, I find is of little avail to them.</p><p>9. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002CriLJ101; ILR2001KAR5205; 2002(2)KarLJ76',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
		'sub' => 'Criminal;Narcotics',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '370808',
	(int) 1 => 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/370808/k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Mohamed Anwar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard both sides.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Both these petitioners, who are arraigned as A. 2 and A. 1 respectively, in Crime No. 109 of 2001 of the respondent-Police Station for the offence under Section 20(b) of the <a>Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> ('N.D.P.S. Act'), have approached this Court with their petition under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. when their simitar application for bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 9-7-2001.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The prosecution case is that, on 22-6-2001, at about 10.30 a.m., at Meenupete of Virajapet City in Kodagu District, both the petitioners were found present when the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Virajapet appeared there with his party on receiving credible information that petitioners were in possession of ganja. Then the person of A. 1, who is petitioner 2 herein, was searched. He was found in possession of 12 packets of ganja weighing 5 grams each, totalling 60 grams, while A2, petitioner 1 herein, was found in possession of 11 packets of ganja weighing 50 grams each totalling 550 grams. Then this contraband came to be duly seized by the Deputy Superintendent of Police under a panchanama in the presence of panchas and the said case was booked against them.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned Counsel for petitioners initially contended that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act being the imprisonment extending upto 5 years, the rigours of the provisions of Section 37(1)(b) in the matter of bail will not be attracted and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. In support of this contention, a Single Bench decision of this Court in A.V. Dharmasingh v. State of Karnataka, was cited by him. The Court finds that in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar and Anr., the proposition enunciated by this Court in the case of A V. Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act envisages certain restrictions in the matter of grant of bail to an accused who is allegedly involved in commission of any offence under the Act. Its material portion is extracted below:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (a) .....',
	(int) 8 => '<p> (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-',
	(int) 9 => '<p> (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail'. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>6. As indicated, the offence under Section 20(b) alleged against petitioners is made punishable under Sub-clause (i) of Section 20(b) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000/-. Interpreting the words 'punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act' occurring in Sub-clause (ii) of Section 37(1) of the Act asexcluding the offences which are made punishable under the Act with imprisonment extending upto five years, the accused in the case of Sambhu Sonkar, supra, who were challenged for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Act, had been granted bail by the High Court of Calcutta. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the aforestated provisions of the Act are attracted to the offence punishable under Section 20(b) and, therefore, the view taken by Calcutta High Court was not legally correct. Thus, the question which arose for consideration of the Supreme Court in that case was: 'The limited question involved in this appeal is whether the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the Narcomic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act') would be applicable in a case where offence is punishable under Section 20(b)(i) for 'possessing gania'. Referring to its earlier decision in Maktool Singh v. State of Punjab, the said question was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the decision of this Court in A.V. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>7. Nextly it was contended by Mr. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for petitioners, that as the total quantity of ganja that was found in possession of A. 1 being 60 grams only, it constituted 'small quantity' within the meaning of Section 27 of the N.D.P.S. Act, for which it provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. But then, it is not in dispute, as has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge in his said order that this accused is involved in another offence under the Act which is registered against him by the concerned authority in Special Case (NDPS) No. 3 of 1998. Therefore, he is disentitled to the remedy of bail.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>8. Mr. Chandrashekar further pressed a point for my consideration that, as indicated in the seizure panchanama, the said Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted search of both petitioners did not inform either of them that, in law, they had the right to get their persons searched by a Magistrate also, which was an imperative requirement of law under Section 42 of the Act. On this count, Mr. Chandrashekar maintained that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. He proposed to rely on a decision of Delhi High Court in Vidyawati v. State. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act. Therefore, this point, I find is of little avail to them.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>9. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 16 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 17
$i = (int) 13
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

7. Nextly it was contended by Mr. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for petitioners, that as the total quantity of ganja that was found in possession of A. 1 being 60 grams only, it constituted 'small quantity' within the meaning of Section 27 of the N.D.P.S. Act, for which it provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. But then, it is not in dispute, as has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge in his said order that this accused is involved in another offence under the Act which is registered against him by the concerned authority in Special Case (NDPS) No. 3 of 1998. Therefore, he is disentitled to the remedy of bail.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'K P Sadath and anr Vs State by Virajapet Town Police Station Kodagu District - Citation 370808 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '370808',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/50702/narcotic-drugs-and-psychotropic-substances-act-1985-complete-act">Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> - Sections 20, 37, 37(1) and 42; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 51 and 439 ',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Petition No. 2383 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr. Vs. State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
			'casenote' => ' - Section 16: [K.Ramanna,J] Suit for specific performance of agreement for sale of immovable property Time was essence of contract -Plaintiff purchaser had not taken any steps for furtherance of agreement for a period of 1 year  Held, It shows purchaser was not willing and ready to perform his contract. Also, no material was produced to prove that defendant sought to extend stipulated time for one year to execute regular sale deed. Breach of contract committed by purchaser. Plaintiff is not entitled to relief. 

Section 22: [K.Ramanna,J] Refund earnest money  Agreement for sale of immovable property - Breach of contract by purchaser  Held, Defendant-seller is not entitled to forfeit earnest money in the absence of forfeiture clause in agreement. However earnest money was allowed to be refunded @ 6% interest.  -  Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law. --(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-(a) .(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.M. Chandrashekar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'N.P. Sinigri, State Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-09-26',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Mohamed Anwar, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Mohamed Anwar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard both sides.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Both these petitioners, who are arraigned as A. 2 and A. 1 respectively, in Crime No. 109 of 2001 of the respondent-Police Station for the offence under Section 20(b) of the <a href="/act/50702/narcotic-drugs-and-psychotropic-substances-act-1985-complete-act">Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> ('N.D.P.S. Act'), have approached this Court with their petition under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. when their simitar application for bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 9-7-2001.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The prosecution case is that, on 22-6-2001, at about 10.30 a.m., at Meenupete of Virajapet City in Kodagu District, both the petitioners were found present when the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Virajapet appeared there with his party on receiving credible information that petitioners were in possession of ganja. Then the person of A. 1, who is petitioner 2 herein, was searched. He was found in possession of 12 packets of ganja weighing 5 grams each, totalling 60 grams, while A2, petitioner 1 herein, was found in possession of 11 packets of ganja weighing 50 grams each totalling 550 grams. Then this contraband came to be duly seized by the Deputy Superintendent of Police under a panchanama in the presence of panchas and the said case was booked against them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned Counsel for petitioners initially contended that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act being the imprisonment extending upto 5 years, the rigours of the provisions of Section 37(1)(b) in the matter of bail will not be attracted and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. In support of this contention, a Single Bench decision of this Court in A.V. Dharmasingh v. State of Karnataka, was cited by him. The Court finds that in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar and Anr., the proposition enunciated by this Court in the case of A V. Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act envisages certain restrictions in the matter of grant of bail to an accused who is allegedly involved in commission of any offence under the Act. Its material portion is extracted below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) .....</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. As indicated, the offence under Section 20(b) alleged against petitioners is made punishable under Sub-clause (i) of Section 20(b) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000/-. Interpreting the words 'punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act' occurring in Sub-clause (ii) of Section 37(1) of the Act asexcluding the offences which are made punishable under the Act with imprisonment extending upto five years, the accused in the case of Sambhu Sonkar, supra, who were challenged for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Act, had been granted bail by the High Court of Calcutta. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the aforestated provisions of the Act are attracted to the offence punishable under Section 20(b) and, therefore, the view taken by Calcutta High Court was not legally correct. Thus, the question which arose for consideration of the Supreme Court in that case was: 'The limited question involved in this appeal is whether the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the Narcomic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act') would be applicable in a case where offence is punishable under Section 20(b)(i) for 'possessing gania'. Referring to its earlier decision in Maktool Singh v. State of Punjab, the said question was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the decision of this Court in A.V. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Nextly it was contended by Mr. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for petitioners, that as the total quantity of ganja that was found in possession of A. 1 being 60 grams only, it constituted 'small quantity' within the meaning of Section 27 of the N.D.P.S. Act, for which it provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. But then, it is not in dispute, as has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge in his said order that this accused is involved in another offence under the Act which is registered against him by the concerned authority in Special Case (NDPS) No. 3 of 1998. Therefore, he is disentitled to the remedy of bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Mr. Chandrashekar further pressed a point for my consideration that, as indicated in the seizure panchanama, the said Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted search of both petitioners did not inform either of them that, in law, they had the right to get their persons searched by a Magistrate also, which was an imperative requirement of law under Section 42 of the Act. On this count, Mr. Chandrashekar maintained that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. He proposed to rely on a decision of Delhi High Court in Vidyawati v. State. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act. Therefore, this point, I find is of little avail to them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002CriLJ101; ILR2001KAR5205; 2002(2)KarLJ76',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
			'sub' => 'Criminal;Narcotics',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '370808',
		(int) 1 => 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'K P Sadath and anr Vs State by Virajapet Town Police Station Kodagu District - Citation 370808 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '370808',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/50702/narcotic-drugs-and-psychotropic-substances-act-1985-complete-act">Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> - Sections 20, 37, 37(1) and 42; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 51 and 439 ',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Petition No. 2383 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr. Vs. State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
		'casenote' => ' - Section 16: [K.Ramanna,J] Suit for specific performance of agreement for sale of immovable property Time was essence of contract -Plaintiff purchaser had not taken any steps for furtherance of agreement for a period of 1 year  Held, It shows purchaser was not willing and ready to perform his contract. Also, no material was produced to prove that defendant sought to extend stipulated time for one year to execute regular sale deed. Breach of contract committed by purchaser. Plaintiff is not entitled to relief. 

Section 22: [K.Ramanna,J] Refund earnest money  Agreement for sale of immovable property - Breach of contract by purchaser  Held, Defendant-seller is not entitled to forfeit earnest money in the absence of forfeiture clause in agreement. However earnest money was allowed to be refunded @ 6% interest.  -  Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law. --(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-(a) .(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.M. Chandrashekar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'N.P. Sinigri, State Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-09-26',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Mohamed Anwar, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Mohamed Anwar, J.</p><p>1. Heard both sides.</p><p>2. Both these petitioners, who are arraigned as A. 2 and A. 1 respectively, in Crime No. 109 of 2001 of the respondent-Police Station for the offence under Section 20(b) of the <a>Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> ('N.D.P.S. Act'), have approached this Court with their petition under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. when their simitar application for bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 9-7-2001.</p><p>3. The prosecution case is that, on 22-6-2001, at about 10.30 a.m., at Meenupete of Virajapet City in Kodagu District, both the petitioners were found present when the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Virajapet appeared there with his party on receiving credible information that petitioners were in possession of ganja. Then the person of A. 1, who is petitioner 2 herein, was searched. He was found in possession of 12 packets of ganja weighing 5 grams each, totalling 60 grams, while A2, petitioner 1 herein, was found in possession of 11 packets of ganja weighing 50 grams each totalling 550 grams. Then this contraband came to be duly seized by the Deputy Superintendent of Police under a panchanama in the presence of panchas and the said case was booked against them.</p><p>4. Learned Counsel for petitioners initially contended that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act being the imprisonment extending upto 5 years, the rigours of the provisions of Section 37(1)(b) in the matter of bail will not be attracted and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. In support of this contention, a Single Bench decision of this Court in A.V. Dharmasingh v. State of Karnataka, was cited by him. The Court finds that in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar and Anr., the proposition enunciated by this Court in the case of A V. Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law.</p><p>5. Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act envisages certain restrictions in the matter of grant of bail to an accused who is allegedly involved in commission of any offence under the Act. Its material portion is extracted below:</p><p>'37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-</p><p> (a) .....</p><p> (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-</p><p> (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and</p><p> (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.</p><p> (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail'. </p><p>6. As indicated, the offence under Section 20(b) alleged against petitioners is made punishable under Sub-clause (i) of Section 20(b) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000/-. Interpreting the words 'punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act' occurring in Sub-clause (ii) of Section 37(1) of the Act asexcluding the offences which are made punishable under the Act with imprisonment extending upto five years, the accused in the case of Sambhu Sonkar, supra, who were challenged for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Act, had been granted bail by the High Court of Calcutta. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the aforestated provisions of the Act are attracted to the offence punishable under Section 20(b) and, therefore, the view taken by Calcutta High Court was not legally correct. Thus, the question which arose for consideration of the Supreme Court in that case was: 'The limited question involved in this appeal is whether the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the Narcomic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act') would be applicable in a case where offence is punishable under Section 20(b)(i) for 'possessing gania'. Referring to its earlier decision in Maktool Singh v. State of Punjab, the said question was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the decision of this Court in A.V. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law.</p><p>7. Nextly it was contended by Mr. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for petitioners, that as the total quantity of ganja that was found in possession of A. 1 being 60 grams only, it constituted 'small quantity' within the meaning of Section 27 of the N.D.P.S. Act, for which it provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. But then, it is not in dispute, as has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge in his said order that this accused is involved in another offence under the Act which is registered against him by the concerned authority in Special Case (NDPS) No. 3 of 1998. Therefore, he is disentitled to the remedy of bail.</p><p>8. Mr. Chandrashekar further pressed a point for my consideration that, as indicated in the seizure panchanama, the said Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted search of both petitioners did not inform either of them that, in law, they had the right to get their persons searched by a Magistrate also, which was an imperative requirement of law under Section 42 of the Act. On this count, Mr. Chandrashekar maintained that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. He proposed to rely on a decision of Delhi High Court in Vidyawati v. State. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act. Therefore, this point, I find is of little avail to them.</p><p>9. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002CriLJ101; ILR2001KAR5205; 2002(2)KarLJ76',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
		'sub' => 'Criminal;Narcotics',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '370808',
	(int) 1 => 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/370808/k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Mohamed Anwar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard both sides.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Both these petitioners, who are arraigned as A. 2 and A. 1 respectively, in Crime No. 109 of 2001 of the respondent-Police Station for the offence under Section 20(b) of the <a>Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> ('N.D.P.S. Act'), have approached this Court with their petition under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. when their simitar application for bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 9-7-2001.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The prosecution case is that, on 22-6-2001, at about 10.30 a.m., at Meenupete of Virajapet City in Kodagu District, both the petitioners were found present when the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Virajapet appeared there with his party on receiving credible information that petitioners were in possession of ganja. Then the person of A. 1, who is petitioner 2 herein, was searched. He was found in possession of 12 packets of ganja weighing 5 grams each, totalling 60 grams, while A2, petitioner 1 herein, was found in possession of 11 packets of ganja weighing 50 grams each totalling 550 grams. Then this contraband came to be duly seized by the Deputy Superintendent of Police under a panchanama in the presence of panchas and the said case was booked against them.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned Counsel for petitioners initially contended that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act being the imprisonment extending upto 5 years, the rigours of the provisions of Section 37(1)(b) in the matter of bail will not be attracted and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. In support of this contention, a Single Bench decision of this Court in A.V. Dharmasingh v. State of Karnataka, was cited by him. The Court finds that in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar and Anr., the proposition enunciated by this Court in the case of A V. Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act envisages certain restrictions in the matter of grant of bail to an accused who is allegedly involved in commission of any offence under the Act. Its material portion is extracted below:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (a) .....',
	(int) 8 => '<p> (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-',
	(int) 9 => '<p> (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail'. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>6. As indicated, the offence under Section 20(b) alleged against petitioners is made punishable under Sub-clause (i) of Section 20(b) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000/-. Interpreting the words 'punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act' occurring in Sub-clause (ii) of Section 37(1) of the Act asexcluding the offences which are made punishable under the Act with imprisonment extending upto five years, the accused in the case of Sambhu Sonkar, supra, who were challenged for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Act, had been granted bail by the High Court of Calcutta. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the aforestated provisions of the Act are attracted to the offence punishable under Section 20(b) and, therefore, the view taken by Calcutta High Court was not legally correct. Thus, the question which arose for consideration of the Supreme Court in that case was: 'The limited question involved in this appeal is whether the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the Narcomic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act') would be applicable in a case where offence is punishable under Section 20(b)(i) for 'possessing gania'. Referring to its earlier decision in Maktool Singh v. State of Punjab, the said question was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the decision of this Court in A.V. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>7. Nextly it was contended by Mr. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for petitioners, that as the total quantity of ganja that was found in possession of A. 1 being 60 grams only, it constituted 'small quantity' within the meaning of Section 27 of the N.D.P.S. Act, for which it provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. But then, it is not in dispute, as has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge in his said order that this accused is involved in another offence under the Act which is registered against him by the concerned authority in Special Case (NDPS) No. 3 of 1998. Therefore, he is disentitled to the remedy of bail.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>8. Mr. Chandrashekar further pressed a point for my consideration that, as indicated in the seizure panchanama, the said Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted search of both petitioners did not inform either of them that, in law, they had the right to get their persons searched by a Magistrate also, which was an imperative requirement of law under Section 42 of the Act. On this count, Mr. Chandrashekar maintained that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. He proposed to rely on a decision of Delhi High Court in Vidyawati v. State. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act. Therefore, this point, I find is of little avail to them.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>9. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 16 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 17
$i = (int) 14
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

8. Mr. Chandrashekar further pressed a point for my consideration that, as indicated in the seizure panchanama, the said Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted search of both petitioners did not inform either of them that, in law, they had the right to get their persons searched by a Magistrate also, which was an imperative requirement of law under Section 42 of the Act. On this count, Mr. Chandrashekar maintained that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. He proposed to rely on a decision of Delhi High Court in Vidyawati v. State. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act. Therefore, this point, I find is of little avail to them.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'K P Sadath and anr Vs State by Virajapet Town Police Station Kodagu District - Citation 370808 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '370808',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/50702/narcotic-drugs-and-psychotropic-substances-act-1985-complete-act">Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> - Sections 20, 37, 37(1) and 42; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 51 and 439 ',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Petition No. 2383 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr. Vs. State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
			'casenote' => ' - Section 16: [K.Ramanna,J] Suit for specific performance of agreement for sale of immovable property Time was essence of contract -Plaintiff purchaser had not taken any steps for furtherance of agreement for a period of 1 year  Held, It shows purchaser was not willing and ready to perform his contract. Also, no material was produced to prove that defendant sought to extend stipulated time for one year to execute regular sale deed. Breach of contract committed by purchaser. Plaintiff is not entitled to relief. 

Section 22: [K.Ramanna,J] Refund earnest money  Agreement for sale of immovable property - Breach of contract by purchaser  Held, Defendant-seller is not entitled to forfeit earnest money in the absence of forfeiture clause in agreement. However earnest money was allowed to be refunded @ 6% interest.  -  Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law. --(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-(a) .(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.M. Chandrashekar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'N.P. Sinigri, State Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-09-26',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Mohamed Anwar, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Mohamed Anwar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard both sides.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Both these petitioners, who are arraigned as A. 2 and A. 1 respectively, in Crime No. 109 of 2001 of the respondent-Police Station for the offence under Section 20(b) of the <a href="/act/50702/narcotic-drugs-and-psychotropic-substances-act-1985-complete-act">Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> ('N.D.P.S. Act'), have approached this Court with their petition under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. when their simitar application for bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 9-7-2001.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The prosecution case is that, on 22-6-2001, at about 10.30 a.m., at Meenupete of Virajapet City in Kodagu District, both the petitioners were found present when the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Virajapet appeared there with his party on receiving credible information that petitioners were in possession of ganja. Then the person of A. 1, who is petitioner 2 herein, was searched. He was found in possession of 12 packets of ganja weighing 5 grams each, totalling 60 grams, while A2, petitioner 1 herein, was found in possession of 11 packets of ganja weighing 50 grams each totalling 550 grams. Then this contraband came to be duly seized by the Deputy Superintendent of Police under a panchanama in the presence of panchas and the said case was booked against them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned Counsel for petitioners initially contended that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act being the imprisonment extending upto 5 years, the rigours of the provisions of Section 37(1)(b) in the matter of bail will not be attracted and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. In support of this contention, a Single Bench decision of this Court in A.V. Dharmasingh v. State of Karnataka, was cited by him. The Court finds that in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar and Anr., the proposition enunciated by this Court in the case of A V. Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act envisages certain restrictions in the matter of grant of bail to an accused who is allegedly involved in commission of any offence under the Act. Its material portion is extracted below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) .....</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. As indicated, the offence under Section 20(b) alleged against petitioners is made punishable under Sub-clause (i) of Section 20(b) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000/-. Interpreting the words 'punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act' occurring in Sub-clause (ii) of Section 37(1) of the Act asexcluding the offences which are made punishable under the Act with imprisonment extending upto five years, the accused in the case of Sambhu Sonkar, supra, who were challenged for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Act, had been granted bail by the High Court of Calcutta. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the aforestated provisions of the Act are attracted to the offence punishable under Section 20(b) and, therefore, the view taken by Calcutta High Court was not legally correct. Thus, the question which arose for consideration of the Supreme Court in that case was: 'The limited question involved in this appeal is whether the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the Narcomic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act') would be applicable in a case where offence is punishable under Section 20(b)(i) for 'possessing gania'. Referring to its earlier decision in Maktool Singh v. State of Punjab, the said question was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the decision of this Court in A.V. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Nextly it was contended by Mr. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for petitioners, that as the total quantity of ganja that was found in possession of A. 1 being 60 grams only, it constituted 'small quantity' within the meaning of Section 27 of the N.D.P.S. Act, for which it provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. But then, it is not in dispute, as has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge in his said order that this accused is involved in another offence under the Act which is registered against him by the concerned authority in Special Case (NDPS) No. 3 of 1998. Therefore, he is disentitled to the remedy of bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Mr. Chandrashekar further pressed a point for my consideration that, as indicated in the seizure panchanama, the said Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted search of both petitioners did not inform either of them that, in law, they had the right to get their persons searched by a Magistrate also, which was an imperative requirement of law under Section 42 of the Act. On this count, Mr. Chandrashekar maintained that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. He proposed to rely on a decision of Delhi High Court in Vidyawati v. State. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act. Therefore, this point, I find is of little avail to them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002CriLJ101; ILR2001KAR5205; 2002(2)KarLJ76',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
			'sub' => 'Criminal;Narcotics',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '370808',
		(int) 1 => 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'K P Sadath and anr Vs State by Virajapet Town Police Station Kodagu District - Citation 370808 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '370808',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/50702/narcotic-drugs-and-psychotropic-substances-act-1985-complete-act">Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> - Sections 20, 37, 37(1) and 42; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 51 and 439 ',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Petition No. 2383 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr. Vs. State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
		'casenote' => ' - Section 16: [K.Ramanna,J] Suit for specific performance of agreement for sale of immovable property Time was essence of contract -Plaintiff purchaser had not taken any steps for furtherance of agreement for a period of 1 year  Held, It shows purchaser was not willing and ready to perform his contract. Also, no material was produced to prove that defendant sought to extend stipulated time for one year to execute regular sale deed. Breach of contract committed by purchaser. Plaintiff is not entitled to relief. 

Section 22: [K.Ramanna,J] Refund earnest money  Agreement for sale of immovable property - Breach of contract by purchaser  Held, Defendant-seller is not entitled to forfeit earnest money in the absence of forfeiture clause in agreement. However earnest money was allowed to be refunded @ 6% interest.  -  Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law. --(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-(a) .(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.M. Chandrashekar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'N.P. Sinigri, State Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-09-26',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Mohamed Anwar, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Mohamed Anwar, J.</p><p>1. Heard both sides.</p><p>2. Both these petitioners, who are arraigned as A. 2 and A. 1 respectively, in Crime No. 109 of 2001 of the respondent-Police Station for the offence under Section 20(b) of the <a>Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> ('N.D.P.S. Act'), have approached this Court with their petition under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. when their simitar application for bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 9-7-2001.</p><p>3. The prosecution case is that, on 22-6-2001, at about 10.30 a.m., at Meenupete of Virajapet City in Kodagu District, both the petitioners were found present when the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Virajapet appeared there with his party on receiving credible information that petitioners were in possession of ganja. Then the person of A. 1, who is petitioner 2 herein, was searched. He was found in possession of 12 packets of ganja weighing 5 grams each, totalling 60 grams, while A2, petitioner 1 herein, was found in possession of 11 packets of ganja weighing 50 grams each totalling 550 grams. Then this contraband came to be duly seized by the Deputy Superintendent of Police under a panchanama in the presence of panchas and the said case was booked against them.</p><p>4. Learned Counsel for petitioners initially contended that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act being the imprisonment extending upto 5 years, the rigours of the provisions of Section 37(1)(b) in the matter of bail will not be attracted and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. In support of this contention, a Single Bench decision of this Court in A.V. Dharmasingh v. State of Karnataka, was cited by him. The Court finds that in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar and Anr., the proposition enunciated by this Court in the case of A V. Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law.</p><p>5. Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act envisages certain restrictions in the matter of grant of bail to an accused who is allegedly involved in commission of any offence under the Act. Its material portion is extracted below:</p><p>'37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-</p><p> (a) .....</p><p> (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-</p><p> (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and</p><p> (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.</p><p> (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail'. </p><p>6. As indicated, the offence under Section 20(b) alleged against petitioners is made punishable under Sub-clause (i) of Section 20(b) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000/-. Interpreting the words 'punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act' occurring in Sub-clause (ii) of Section 37(1) of the Act asexcluding the offences which are made punishable under the Act with imprisonment extending upto five years, the accused in the case of Sambhu Sonkar, supra, who were challenged for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Act, had been granted bail by the High Court of Calcutta. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the aforestated provisions of the Act are attracted to the offence punishable under Section 20(b) and, therefore, the view taken by Calcutta High Court was not legally correct. Thus, the question which arose for consideration of the Supreme Court in that case was: 'The limited question involved in this appeal is whether the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the Narcomic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act') would be applicable in a case where offence is punishable under Section 20(b)(i) for 'possessing gania'. Referring to its earlier decision in Maktool Singh v. State of Punjab, the said question was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the decision of this Court in A.V. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law.</p><p>7. Nextly it was contended by Mr. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for petitioners, that as the total quantity of ganja that was found in possession of A. 1 being 60 grams only, it constituted 'small quantity' within the meaning of Section 27 of the N.D.P.S. Act, for which it provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. But then, it is not in dispute, as has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge in his said order that this accused is involved in another offence under the Act which is registered against him by the concerned authority in Special Case (NDPS) No. 3 of 1998. Therefore, he is disentitled to the remedy of bail.</p><p>8. Mr. Chandrashekar further pressed a point for my consideration that, as indicated in the seizure panchanama, the said Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted search of both petitioners did not inform either of them that, in law, they had the right to get their persons searched by a Magistrate also, which was an imperative requirement of law under Section 42 of the Act. On this count, Mr. Chandrashekar maintained that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. He proposed to rely on a decision of Delhi High Court in Vidyawati v. State. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act. Therefore, this point, I find is of little avail to them.</p><p>9. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002CriLJ101; ILR2001KAR5205; 2002(2)KarLJ76',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
		'sub' => 'Criminal;Narcotics',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '370808',
	(int) 1 => 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/370808/k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Mohamed Anwar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard both sides.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Both these petitioners, who are arraigned as A. 2 and A. 1 respectively, in Crime No. 109 of 2001 of the respondent-Police Station for the offence under Section 20(b) of the <a>Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> ('N.D.P.S. Act'), have approached this Court with their petition under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. when their simitar application for bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 9-7-2001.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The prosecution case is that, on 22-6-2001, at about 10.30 a.m., at Meenupete of Virajapet City in Kodagu District, both the petitioners were found present when the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Virajapet appeared there with his party on receiving credible information that petitioners were in possession of ganja. Then the person of A. 1, who is petitioner 2 herein, was searched. He was found in possession of 12 packets of ganja weighing 5 grams each, totalling 60 grams, while A2, petitioner 1 herein, was found in possession of 11 packets of ganja weighing 50 grams each totalling 550 grams. Then this contraband came to be duly seized by the Deputy Superintendent of Police under a panchanama in the presence of panchas and the said case was booked against them.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned Counsel for petitioners initially contended that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act being the imprisonment extending upto 5 years, the rigours of the provisions of Section 37(1)(b) in the matter of bail will not be attracted and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. In support of this contention, a Single Bench decision of this Court in A.V. Dharmasingh v. State of Karnataka, was cited by him. The Court finds that in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar and Anr., the proposition enunciated by this Court in the case of A V. Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act envisages certain restrictions in the matter of grant of bail to an accused who is allegedly involved in commission of any offence under the Act. Its material portion is extracted below:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (a) .....',
	(int) 8 => '<p> (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-',
	(int) 9 => '<p> (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail'. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>6. As indicated, the offence under Section 20(b) alleged against petitioners is made punishable under Sub-clause (i) of Section 20(b) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000/-. Interpreting the words 'punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act' occurring in Sub-clause (ii) of Section 37(1) of the Act asexcluding the offences which are made punishable under the Act with imprisonment extending upto five years, the accused in the case of Sambhu Sonkar, supra, who were challenged for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Act, had been granted bail by the High Court of Calcutta. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the aforestated provisions of the Act are attracted to the offence punishable under Section 20(b) and, therefore, the view taken by Calcutta High Court was not legally correct. Thus, the question which arose for consideration of the Supreme Court in that case was: 'The limited question involved in this appeal is whether the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the Narcomic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act') would be applicable in a case where offence is punishable under Section 20(b)(i) for 'possessing gania'. Referring to its earlier decision in Maktool Singh v. State of Punjab, the said question was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the decision of this Court in A.V. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>7. Nextly it was contended by Mr. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for petitioners, that as the total quantity of ganja that was found in possession of A. 1 being 60 grams only, it constituted 'small quantity' within the meaning of Section 27 of the N.D.P.S. Act, for which it provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. But then, it is not in dispute, as has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge in his said order that this accused is involved in another offence under the Act which is registered against him by the concerned authority in Special Case (NDPS) No. 3 of 1998. Therefore, he is disentitled to the remedy of bail.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>8. Mr. Chandrashekar further pressed a point for my consideration that, as indicated in the seizure panchanama, the said Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted search of both petitioners did not inform either of them that, in law, they had the right to get their persons searched by a Magistrate also, which was an imperative requirement of law under Section 42 of the Act. On this count, Mr. Chandrashekar maintained that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. He proposed to rely on a decision of Delhi High Court in Vidyawati v. State. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act. Therefore, this point, I find is of little avail to them.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>9. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 16 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 17
$i = (int) 15
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

9. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'K P Sadath and anr Vs State by Virajapet Town Police Station Kodagu District - Citation 370808 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '370808',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/50702/narcotic-drugs-and-psychotropic-substances-act-1985-complete-act">Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> - Sections 20, 37, 37(1) and 42; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 51 and 439 ',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Petition No. 2383 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr. Vs. State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
			'casenote' => ' - Section 16: [K.Ramanna,J] Suit for specific performance of agreement for sale of immovable property Time was essence of contract -Plaintiff purchaser had not taken any steps for furtherance of agreement for a period of 1 year  Held, It shows purchaser was not willing and ready to perform his contract. Also, no material was produced to prove that defendant sought to extend stipulated time for one year to execute regular sale deed. Breach of contract committed by purchaser. Plaintiff is not entitled to relief. 

Section 22: [K.Ramanna,J] Refund earnest money  Agreement for sale of immovable property - Breach of contract by purchaser  Held, Defendant-seller is not entitled to forfeit earnest money in the absence of forfeiture clause in agreement. However earnest money was allowed to be refunded @ 6% interest.  -  Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law. --(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-(a) .(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.M. Chandrashekar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'N.P. Sinigri, State Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-09-26',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Mohamed Anwar, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Mohamed Anwar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard both sides.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Both these petitioners, who are arraigned as A. 2 and A. 1 respectively, in Crime No. 109 of 2001 of the respondent-Police Station for the offence under Section 20(b) of the <a href="/act/50702/narcotic-drugs-and-psychotropic-substances-act-1985-complete-act">Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> ('N.D.P.S. Act'), have approached this Court with their petition under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. when their simitar application for bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 9-7-2001.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The prosecution case is that, on 22-6-2001, at about 10.30 a.m., at Meenupete of Virajapet City in Kodagu District, both the petitioners were found present when the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Virajapet appeared there with his party on receiving credible information that petitioners were in possession of ganja. Then the person of A. 1, who is petitioner 2 herein, was searched. He was found in possession of 12 packets of ganja weighing 5 grams each, totalling 60 grams, while A2, petitioner 1 herein, was found in possession of 11 packets of ganja weighing 50 grams each totalling 550 grams. Then this contraband came to be duly seized by the Deputy Superintendent of Police under a panchanama in the presence of panchas and the said case was booked against them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned Counsel for petitioners initially contended that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act being the imprisonment extending upto 5 years, the rigours of the provisions of Section 37(1)(b) in the matter of bail will not be attracted and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. In support of this contention, a Single Bench decision of this Court in A.V. Dharmasingh v. State of Karnataka, was cited by him. The Court finds that in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar and Anr., the proposition enunciated by this Court in the case of A V. Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act envisages certain restrictions in the matter of grant of bail to an accused who is allegedly involved in commission of any offence under the Act. Its material portion is extracted below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) .....</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. As indicated, the offence under Section 20(b) alleged against petitioners is made punishable under Sub-clause (i) of Section 20(b) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000/-. Interpreting the words 'punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act' occurring in Sub-clause (ii) of Section 37(1) of the Act asexcluding the offences which are made punishable under the Act with imprisonment extending upto five years, the accused in the case of Sambhu Sonkar, supra, who were challenged for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Act, had been granted bail by the High Court of Calcutta. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the aforestated provisions of the Act are attracted to the offence punishable under Section 20(b) and, therefore, the view taken by Calcutta High Court was not legally correct. Thus, the question which arose for consideration of the Supreme Court in that case was: 'The limited question involved in this appeal is whether the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the Narcomic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act') would be applicable in a case where offence is punishable under Section 20(b)(i) for 'possessing gania'. Referring to its earlier decision in Maktool Singh v. State of Punjab, the said question was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the decision of this Court in A.V. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Nextly it was contended by Mr. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for petitioners, that as the total quantity of ganja that was found in possession of A. 1 being 60 grams only, it constituted 'small quantity' within the meaning of Section 27 of the N.D.P.S. Act, for which it provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. But then, it is not in dispute, as has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge in his said order that this accused is involved in another offence under the Act which is registered against him by the concerned authority in Special Case (NDPS) No. 3 of 1998. Therefore, he is disentitled to the remedy of bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Mr. Chandrashekar further pressed a point for my consideration that, as indicated in the seizure panchanama, the said Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted search of both petitioners did not inform either of them that, in law, they had the right to get their persons searched by a Magistrate also, which was an imperative requirement of law under Section 42 of the Act. On this count, Mr. Chandrashekar maintained that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. He proposed to rely on a decision of Delhi High Court in Vidyawati v. State. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act. Therefore, this point, I find is of little avail to them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002CriLJ101; ILR2001KAR5205; 2002(2)KarLJ76',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
			'sub' => 'Criminal;Narcotics',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '370808',
		(int) 1 => 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'K P Sadath and anr Vs State by Virajapet Town Police Station Kodagu District - Citation 370808 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '370808',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/50702/narcotic-drugs-and-psychotropic-substances-act-1985-complete-act">Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> - Sections 20, 37, 37(1) and 42; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 51 and 439 ',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Petition No. 2383 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'K.P. Sadath and anr. Vs. State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
		'casenote' => ' - Section 16: [K.Ramanna,J] Suit for specific performance of agreement for sale of immovable property Time was essence of contract -Plaintiff purchaser had not taken any steps for furtherance of agreement for a period of 1 year  Held, It shows purchaser was not willing and ready to perform his contract. Also, no material was produced to prove that defendant sought to extend stipulated time for one year to execute regular sale deed. Breach of contract committed by purchaser. Plaintiff is not entitled to relief. 

Section 22: [K.Ramanna,J] Refund earnest money  Agreement for sale of immovable property - Breach of contract by purchaser  Held, Defendant-seller is not entitled to forfeit earnest money in the absence of forfeiture clause in agreement. However earnest money was allowed to be refunded @ 6% interest.  -  Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law. --(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-(a) .(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.M. Chandrashekar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'N.P. Sinigri, State Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-09-26',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Mohamed Anwar, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Mohamed Anwar, J.</p><p>1. Heard both sides.</p><p>2. Both these petitioners, who are arraigned as A. 2 and A. 1 respectively, in Crime No. 109 of 2001 of the respondent-Police Station for the offence under Section 20(b) of the <a>Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> ('N.D.P.S. Act'), have approached this Court with their petition under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. when their simitar application for bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 9-7-2001.</p><p>3. The prosecution case is that, on 22-6-2001, at about 10.30 a.m., at Meenupete of Virajapet City in Kodagu District, both the petitioners were found present when the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Virajapet appeared there with his party on receiving credible information that petitioners were in possession of ganja. Then the person of A. 1, who is petitioner 2 herein, was searched. He was found in possession of 12 packets of ganja weighing 5 grams each, totalling 60 grams, while A2, petitioner 1 herein, was found in possession of 11 packets of ganja weighing 50 grams each totalling 550 grams. Then this contraband came to be duly seized by the Deputy Superintendent of Police under a panchanama in the presence of panchas and the said case was booked against them.</p><p>4. Learned Counsel for petitioners initially contended that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act being the imprisonment extending upto 5 years, the rigours of the provisions of Section 37(1)(b) in the matter of bail will not be attracted and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. In support of this contention, a Single Bench decision of this Court in A.V. Dharmasingh v. State of Karnataka, was cited by him. The Court finds that in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar and Anr., the proposition enunciated by this Court in the case of A V. Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law.</p><p>5. Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act envisages certain restrictions in the matter of grant of bail to an accused who is allegedly involved in commission of any offence under the Act. Its material portion is extracted below:</p><p>'37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-</p><p> (a) .....</p><p> (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-</p><p> (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and</p><p> (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.</p><p> (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail'. </p><p>6. As indicated, the offence under Section 20(b) alleged against petitioners is made punishable under Sub-clause (i) of Section 20(b) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000/-. Interpreting the words 'punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act' occurring in Sub-clause (ii) of Section 37(1) of the Act asexcluding the offences which are made punishable under the Act with imprisonment extending upto five years, the accused in the case of Sambhu Sonkar, supra, who were challenged for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Act, had been granted bail by the High Court of Calcutta. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the aforestated provisions of the Act are attracted to the offence punishable under Section 20(b) and, therefore, the view taken by Calcutta High Court was not legally correct. Thus, the question which arose for consideration of the Supreme Court in that case was: 'The limited question involved in this appeal is whether the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the Narcomic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act') would be applicable in a case where offence is punishable under Section 20(b)(i) for 'possessing gania'. Referring to its earlier decision in Maktool Singh v. State of Punjab, the said question was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the decision of this Court in A.V. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law.</p><p>7. Nextly it was contended by Mr. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for petitioners, that as the total quantity of ganja that was found in possession of A. 1 being 60 grams only, it constituted 'small quantity' within the meaning of Section 27 of the N.D.P.S. Act, for which it provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. But then, it is not in dispute, as has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge in his said order that this accused is involved in another offence under the Act which is registered against him by the concerned authority in Special Case (NDPS) No. 3 of 1998. Therefore, he is disentitled to the remedy of bail.</p><p>8. Mr. Chandrashekar further pressed a point for my consideration that, as indicated in the seizure panchanama, the said Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted search of both petitioners did not inform either of them that, in law, they had the right to get their persons searched by a Magistrate also, which was an imperative requirement of law under Section 42 of the Act. On this count, Mr. Chandrashekar maintained that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. He proposed to rely on a decision of Delhi High Court in Vidyawati v. State. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act. Therefore, this point, I find is of little avail to them.</p><p>9. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002CriLJ101; ILR2001KAR5205; 2002(2)KarLJ76',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodagu District',
		'sub' => 'Criminal;Narcotics',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '370808',
	(int) 1 => 'k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/370808/k-p-sadath-vs-virajapet-district'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Mohamed Anwar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard both sides.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Both these petitioners, who are arraigned as A. 2 and A. 1 respectively, in Crime No. 109 of 2001 of the respondent-Police Station for the offence under Section 20(b) of the <a>Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985</a> ('N.D.P.S. Act'), have approached this Court with their petition under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. when their simitar application for bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 9-7-2001.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The prosecution case is that, on 22-6-2001, at about 10.30 a.m., at Meenupete of Virajapet City in Kodagu District, both the petitioners were found present when the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Virajapet appeared there with his party on receiving credible information that petitioners were in possession of ganja. Then the person of A. 1, who is petitioner 2 herein, was searched. He was found in possession of 12 packets of ganja weighing 5 grams each, totalling 60 grams, while A2, petitioner 1 herein, was found in possession of 11 packets of ganja weighing 50 grams each totalling 550 grams. Then this contraband came to be duly seized by the Deputy Superintendent of Police under a panchanama in the presence of panchas and the said case was booked against them.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned Counsel for petitioners initially contended that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act being the imprisonment extending upto 5 years, the rigours of the provisions of Section 37(1)(b) in the matter of bail will not be attracted and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. In support of this contention, a Single Bench decision of this Court in A.V. Dharmasingh v. State of Karnataka, was cited by him. The Court finds that in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar and Anr., the proposition enunciated by this Court in the case of A V. Dharmasingh, supra, is not a good law.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act envisages certain restrictions in the matter of grant of bail to an accused who is allegedly involved in commission of any offence under the Act. Its material portion is extracted below:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (a) .....',
	(int) 8 => '<p> (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-',
	(int) 9 => '<p> (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail'. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>6. As indicated, the offence under Section 20(b) alleged against petitioners is made punishable under Sub-clause (i) of Section 20(b) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000/-. Interpreting the words 'punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act' occurring in Sub-clause (ii) of Section 37(1) of the Act asexcluding the offences which are made punishable under the Act with imprisonment extending upto five years, the accused in the case of Sambhu Sonkar, supra, who were challenged for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Act, had been granted bail by the High Court of Calcutta. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the aforestated provisions of the Act are attracted to the offence punishable under Section 20(b) and, therefore, the view taken by Calcutta High Court was not legally correct. Thus, the question which arose for consideration of the Supreme Court in that case was: 'The limited question involved in this appeal is whether the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the Narcomic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act') would be applicable in a case where offence is punishable under Section 20(b)(i) for 'possessing gania'. Referring to its earlier decision in Maktool Singh v. State of Punjab, the said question was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the decision of this Court in A.V. Dharma Singh's case, supra, is no longer a good law.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>7. Nextly it was contended by Mr. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for petitioners, that as the total quantity of ganja that was found in possession of A. 1 being 60 grams only, it constituted 'small quantity' within the meaning of Section 27 of the N.D.P.S. Act, for which it provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. But then, it is not in dispute, as has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge in his said order that this accused is involved in another offence under the Act which is registered against him by the concerned authority in Special Case (NDPS) No. 3 of 1998. Therefore, he is disentitled to the remedy of bail.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>8. Mr. Chandrashekar further pressed a point for my consideration that, as indicated in the seizure panchanama, the said Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted search of both petitioners did not inform either of them that, in law, they had the right to get their persons searched by a Magistrate also, which was an imperative requirement of law under Section 42 of the Act. On this count, Mr. Chandrashekar maintained that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. He proposed to rely on a decision of Delhi High Court in Vidyawati v. State. What would be the effect of such an illegality is a matter, in my humble opinion, to be considered at the trial on the merits of the prosecution case against the accused and that the same cannot be urged as a good ground for bail to the accused involved in commission of the alleged offence under the Act. Therefore, this point, I find is of little avail to them.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>9. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 16 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 17
$i = (int) 16
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109