Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

STATE OF PUNJAB versus MANVIR KUMAR

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


State of Punjab v. Manvir Kumar - CRM-A-373-MA-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 9566 (30 October 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Criminal Misc. No. 373-MA of 2006

Date of Decision :- November 7, 2006.

State of Punjab Versus Manvir Kumar

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHTAB S.GILL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALDEV SINGH

Present:- Mr. Ramandeep Singh Sandhu, DAG Punjab.

------

MEHTAB S.GILL, J.

Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned trial Court has wrongly given weightage that the appellant belongs to Jammu and Kashmir and was picked up by the police and thereafter, a false case was foisted on him. The discrepancies pointed in the statements of the prosecution witnesses are minor and do not affect the case materially.

Mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called as "NDPS Act") have been complied with.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment.

The case of the prosecution is that on 15.5.2004 the accused was coming on a scooter from the side of Village Beharian and was apprehended by SI Joga Singh along with other police officials. Offer of Criminal Misc. No. 373-MA of 2006

search was made to him, as to whether he wanted to get searched by a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer and non-consent memo Ex.PE was prepared. Message was sent to DSP Mohinder Singh, who reached the spot. The Investigating Officer tried to join independent witnesses, but all of them refused to join. On search of the accused by DSP Mohinder Singh, in the pant pocket of the accused, Charas wrapped in a polythene bag was recovered. The total weight of the Charas was 1 Kg. Section 50 of the NDPS Act was not complied with though non-consent memo. Ex.PE was prepared, but at the time of giving the option as to whether the accused wanted to be searched by a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, Investigating Officer SI Joginder Singh PW4 admitted in his cross- examination that he asked the accused as to whether he wanted to get searched by him. Section 50 of the NDPS Act being mandatory, the learned trial Court has rightly held that the offer of search was not made to the accused as per the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act.

We do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the learned trial Court.

Dismissed.

(MEHTAB S.GILL)

JUDGE

(BALDEV SINGH)

November 7, 2006 JUDGE

SKA

Criminal Misc. No. 373-MA of 2006


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.