Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC821; 2000(1)ALD(Cri)404; 2000(1)ALT(Cri)217; (2001)1CALLT33(SC); 2000CriLJ1384; 2000(68)ECC16; (2000)2GLR1129; JT2000(1)SC471; RLW2000(2)SC264; 2000(1)SCALE361; (2
K.T. Thomas, J.1. Appellant was an auto-rickshaw driver. On the evening of 12-1-1988 an auto-rickshaw was intercepted by a posse of police personnel while it was proceeding to Shahpur (Gujarat). Four gunny bags were found slacked in the vehicle. They contained 'Charas' (Cannabis hemp). Appellant was arrested and prosecuted for offences under Section 20(b)(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic ^Substances Act, 1985 (for short the Act') besides Section 66(1Kb) of the Bombay Prohibition Act.2. The trial Court acquitted the appellant, but on appeal by the State of Gujarat a Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat set aside the order of acquittal and convicted him of the offences under the above sections. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rupees on lakh for the first count while no separate sentence was imposed for the second count.3. Facts are not seriously disputed by the appellant. More details about the facts are the following:PW-2 Premsingh ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC870; 2000CriLJ1401; JT2000(1)SC518; 2000(1)MPHT558; 2000(1)SCALE396; (2000)5SCC88; [2000]1SCR579
R.P. Sethi, J.1. Heard. Leave granted.2. Relying upon the judgment of this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal : 1992CriLJ527 and exercising powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh vide the judgment impugned in these appeals quashed the investigations and consequent proceedings against the respondents initiated, conducted and concluded by the police under Section 13(1)(e) and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Court found that for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act the investigation had not been conducted by an authorised officer in terms of Section 17 of the Act. It was observed:It is of utmost importance that investigation into criminal offence must always be free from any objectionable features or infirmities which may legitimately lead to the grievance of the accused that the work of investigation is carried on unfairly and with any ulterior m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2000(4)SC391; (2000)9SCC168
ORDERK.T. Thomas, J.1. Leave granted.2. It appears that the High Court was wrongly led into thinking that Order XXII Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code would squarely apply in the matter and hence a Division Bench of the High Court proceeded to consider whether there was sufficient cause for the long delay in making an application under the above Rule for substitution of the legal representatives of a deceased party. The Division Bench found that there was no proper explanation for the long delay and hence rejected the application as though it is one for impleadment of legal representatives of the deceased party. Consequently the appeal filed by the State in challenge of an award passed by a Reference Court under the Land Acquisition Act stood rejected as barred by limitation.3. The second Additional Sub-Court, Trivandrum passed the award in the aforesaid land acquisition matter on a reference being made under Section 18 of the Act. The date of the said award of the Reference Court is ...
Tag this Judgment!