Mrutyunjaya S/O Beedi Rudraiah Vs. State of Karnataka by Malur Police Station - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- industrial disputes act, 1947 [c.a. no. 14/1947]. section 18: settlement interim order passed by industrial tribunal in reference extending financial benefits to workers in terms of settlement financial benefits include ex gratia payment workers of union though not signed settlement have attended duty at part with members who have entered into settlement held, they are entitled to ex-gratia payment. interim order is always subject to final result of dispute. interference of the high court is unwarranted unless injustice is shown. orderjawad rahim, j.1. petitioner is accused no. 1 who along with his wife bagyamma are facing charges for offences punishable under section 20b of the ndps act which is under investigation in crime no. 276 of 2008 on the file of the malur police station.2. according to the prosecution, on 10.02.2008 on the basis of information received the police officers headed by the circle inspector of police and panchas raided the car bearing registration no. ka-05 m-3505 parked in the compound of the house of the accused no. 1 mrutyunjaya and found in the car 18 kgs. of ganja and on questioning, the petitioner herein escaped from the place leaving behind his wife the 2nd accused who also could not justify the lawful possession under permit. on that basis, she was arrested and search was launched for accused no. 1. during further investigation, he has been arrested.3. the prosecution claims to have seized 18 kgs. of ganja and have complied with the mandatory provisions of the act regarding seizure and collection of sample. that material is not made available in this petition. however, the only point that arises for consideration is whether in the given fact situation, provisions of section 37 of the ndps act apples where the grant of hail is only under certain circumstances or whether liberality under section 439 may be applied. the learned government pleader as also the petitioner agree on one point, that the seized contraband is 18 kgs. of ganja which is less than 20 kgs. under the ratification issued by the central government, under section 2, the commercial quantity defined is as 20 kgs. and above. therefore, it is less than commercial quantity. the small quantity is defined as less than 1 kg. it is for this reason the prosecution appears to have invoked clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 20 which mandates that contravention of the provisions of this act in respect of contraband more than small quantity and less than commercial quantity will be punishable with imprisonment up to 10 years.4. provisions of section 57 makes it clear that when a person is accused of having committed offence punishable under the act in respect of matters covered under sections 19, 24 and 27a and commercial quantities, no bail would be grantable unless the court is satisfied of the innocence of the applicant and after giving notice to the prosecution. that provision factually does not apply as the quantity involved is less than commercial quantity and far more than small quantity. hence the criteria envisaged under section 439 has to be followed. it is seen that the accused is said to be a permanent resident owning property from where the contraband is seized. therefore, being a permanent resident, he may not abscond. as far as tampering with prosecution case is concerned, the contraband is in possession of the police and the persons in-charge of the seizure are also officials of the police department. therefore, there is less chance of being won over. keeping in view that the other co-accused has been granted bail, the petitioner may be granted the same relief. hence the order. petition is allowed subject to the following conditions:(i) the petitioner shall execute a bond in a aura of rs. 25,000/- with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the learned sessions judge.(ii) the petitioner shall report at the complainant-police station every week on saturday or sunday between 7.00 a.m. and 7.00 p.m. till the trial commences.(iii) the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the concerned court without prior permission; and(iv) the petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

Judgment:
ORDER

Jawad Rahim, J.

1. Petitioner is accused No. 1 who along with his wife Bagyamma are facing charges for offences punishable under Section 20B of the NDPS Act which is under investigation in Crime No. 276 of 2008 on the file of the Malur Police Station.

2. According to the prosecution, on 10.02.2008 on the basis of information received the police officers headed by the Circle Inspector of police and panchas raided the car bearing registration No. KA-05 M-3505 parked in the compound of the house of the accused No. 1 Mrutyunjaya and found in the car 18 Kgs. of ganja and on questioning, the petitioner herein escaped from the place leaving behind his wife the 2nd accused who also could not justify the lawful possession under permit. On that basis, she was arrested and search was launched for accused No. 1. During further investigation, he has been arrested.

3. The prosecution claims to have seized 18 Kgs. of ganja and have complied with the mandatory provisions of the Act regarding seizure and collection of sample. That material is not made available in this petition. However, the only point that arises for consideration is whether in the given fact situation, provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apples where the grant of hail is only under certain circumstances or whether liberality under Section 439 may be applied. The learned Government Pleader as also the petitioner agree on one point, that the seized contraband is 18 Kgs. of ganja which is less than 20 Kgs. under the ratification issued by the Central Government, Under Section 2, the commercial quantity defined is as 20 Kgs. and above. Therefore, it is less than commercial quantity. The small quantity is defined as less than 1 Kg. It is for this reason the prosecution appears to have invoked Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 20 which mandates that contravention of the provisions of this Act in respect of contraband more than small quantity and less than commercial quantity will be punishable with imprisonment up to 10 years.

4. Provisions of Section 57 makes it clear that when a person is accused of having committed offence punishable under the Act in respect of matters covered under Sections 19, 24 and 27A and commercial quantities, no bail would be grantable unless the Court is satisfied of the innocence of the applicant and after giving notice to the prosecution. That provision factually does not apply as the quantity involved is less than commercial quantity and far more than small quantity. Hence the criteria envisaged under Section 439 has to be followed. It is seen that the accused is said to be a permanent resident owning property from where the contraband is seized. Therefore, being a permanent resident, he may not abscond. As far as tampering with prosecution case is concerned, the contraband is in possession of the police and the persons in-charge of the seizure are also officials of the police department. Therefore, there is less chance of being won over. Keeping in view that the other co-accused has been granted bail, the petitioner may be granted the same relief. Hence the order. Petition is allowed subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall execute a bond in a aura of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge.

(ii) The petitioner shall report at the complainant-police station every week on Saturday or Sunday between 7.00 a.m. and 7.00 p.m. till the trial commences.

(iii) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the concerned court without prior permission; and

(iv) The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses.