Dr. Ranjit Kumar S/O Ramjiwan Kumar Vs. National Board of Examinations, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
criminal - seizure of contraband substance - conviction - interrogatory statement - section 23c and section 67 of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substance act, 1985(ndps) - whether the conviction bad in law and whether the interrogatory evidence of the appellant recorded under section 67 of the ndps act wherein accused accepted his guilt admissible - held, raiding party deposed that appellant along with the truck coating ganja arrested - after recovery, the truck along with driver carried to the office - no contradiction or conflict in the evidence of any of the prosecution witnesses on the point of seizure/preparation of seizure memo in the office of the custom department - apex court in sharad birdhichand sarda case and bhagat singh case held that any circumstance in respect of which an accused was not examined under section section 313 of the criminal code cannot be used against him - hence, interrogatory statement cannot be used against accused - lower court rightly convicted the accused - appeal dismissed criminal - ganja leaf - whether in the present case,the seized ganja was not ganja but leaf which cannot be considered as ganja under section 2(b) of the narcotics drugs and psychotropic act - section 2(b) of the act defines ganja, as the flowering tops of the cannabis plant (excluding the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops), by whatever name they may be known or designated - chemical examination report corroborates that the seized within the meaning of section 2(b) of the ndps act - no discrepancy either in recovery or seizure - conclusively proved that seized article within the section 2(b) - appeal dismissed - v.n. sinha, j.1. heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the union of india.2. petitioner applied for admission in super specialty course pursuant to national board centralized entrance test super specialty course (cet-nbe) 2009. he became successful and was placed at sl. no. 2 in the merit list below dr. sanjay prakash, who was issued call letter for admission on 25th march, 2009 by the i.g.i.m.s., patna i.e. after the expiry of the last date fixed for such admission. as dr. sanjay prakash, who was above the petitioner did not choose to join the course, petitioner applied for admission on the ground that he being placed just below dr. sanjay prakash be considered for admission in the super specialty courses at i.g.i.m.s., patna. the request of the petitioner was not considered. he, accordingly, filed writ petition bearing c.w.j.c. no. 7761 of 2009, which was disposed of under order dated 10.7.2009 directing the authorities of the national board of examinations to consider the request of the petitioner for admission in the super specialty course at i.g.i.m.s., patna on the seat which remained vacant on account of refusal of dr. sanjay prakash to get admitted. the executive director of the national board of examinations has considered the request of the petitioner and rejected the same under order dated 13th august, 2009 (annexure-1) wherefrom it appears that learned executive director has rejected his request on the ground that dr. sanjay prakash, who was placed above the petitioner in the panel, was offered admission by i.g.i.m.s., patna after the cut off date. in the circumstances, petitioner also cannot be admitted on the seat which remained vacant on account of refusal of dr. sanjay prakash toget himself admitted in super specialty course at the i.g.i.m.s., patna.3. learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the delay and laches on the part of the i.g.i.m.s., patna, petitioner could not be allowed to suffer and the seat which has remained vacant on account of refusal of dr. sanjay prakash to get admitted should be offered to him as he has become successful in the selection test, which fact is admitted in the order of the executive director of the national board of examinations dated 13th august, 2009 (annexure-1).4. having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the union of india, who prayed for time to file counter affidavit, i however taking into account the nature of dispute and the contents of the impugned order deemed unnecessary to grant time to file counter affidavit as it is evident from the impugned order dated 13th august, 2009, annexure-1, that the request of the petitioner for admission has been refused by the executive director of the national board of examinations on the ground of laches on the part of the institution, namely, i.g.i.m.s., patna in issuing the offer of admission to dr. sanjay prakash on 25th march, 2009 i.e. after expiry of the last date for admission i.e. 7th march, 2009. according to this court delay and laches on the part of the institution can hardly be a ground to refuse admission to a candidate who has become successful in the examination.5. in this connection, it is pointed out that there is only one seat of super specialty/subject in the i.g.i.m.s., patna and the course shall begin after the candidate is admitted. according to counsel for the petitioner, it is hardly relevant if delay was caused in admission by the institution concerned. the student admitted in the super specialty subject/course shall be completing the course after passage of the required time from the date of his admission as there is no other student for the course.6. i see substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and while setting aside the order dated 13th august, 2009, i direct the authorities of the diplomate of national board as also the i.g.i.m.s., patna to admit the petitioner in the super specialty course as early as possible in any case within 30 days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.7. this application is, accordingly, allowed.