Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SUKH RAM versus STATE

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SUKH RAM v STATE - CRLA Case No. 805 of 2006 [2007] RD-RJ 2851 (22 May 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JODHPUR

JUDGMENT

SUKH RAM VERSUS STATE OF RAJASTHAN.

S.B.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.805/2006

Section 454 Cr.P.C. against the

Judgment dated 7.6.2006 in Cr.Misc. Case

No.144/2005(Sessions Case No.48/2002) by Sh. S.R.Meghvanshi ,RHJS, Special

Judge N.D.PS.Cases, Jodhpur whereby he confiscated Rs.15,032/-..

May 22nd , 2007.

DATE OF JUDGMENT :

PRE S ENT

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE CHATRA RAM JAT

MrB.S.Rathore, counsel for the appellant.

Mr.JPS Choudhary,Public .Prosecutor

BY THE COURT: 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 7.6.2006 to the extent of confiscating Rs.15,032/-by the Special Judge N.D.P.S.cases, Jodhpur, whereby the learned Special Judge confiscated Rs.15,032/- recovered at the instance of the appellant. 2. The brief facts of this appeal which are necessary to dispose of this appeal as well as prayer for staying operation and effect of the order dated 7.6.2006.,in nut shell, are as follows :-

F.I.R. No.22/2002 dated 5.3.02 at Police station

Chuhatan district Barmer for offences under Section 8/17 and 8/18 of the NDPS Act and at the instance and information under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act,by the accused appellant Sukh Ram an amount of Rs.15,032/- was recovered by the police along with contraband opium

Charge sheet was filed against the accused appellant and after trial, accused appellant was acquitted of the charges levelled against him but proceeding under Section 60- 63 were initiated against the appellant for amount of

Rs.15,032/-. Accused appellant filed reply and produced evidence and stated that this money recovered from his house is acquired by the sale of buffalo. 3. While deciding above case, the accused appellant was acquitted of the charges of section 8/17 and 8/18 of the

NDPS Act vide judgment and order dated 31.3.2005 but for amount of Rs.15,032/- proceedings under Sections 60-63 of the NDPS Act were ordered to be conducted and after completing the proceedings, the learned trial Court vide judgment and order dated 7.6.2006 confiscated a sum of .

Rs.15,032/-. Hence, this appeal. 4. On 7.11.2006, this Court passed order :-

"7.11.2006

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHAN KUMAR ACHARYA

Mr.B.S.Rathore, for the appellant.

Mr.S.N.Tiwari, P.P. For the state.

This matter has been listed today for orders on stay application.This appeal has already been admitted on 13.9.2006. Learned counsel for the appellant states that since short question of law involved in this appeal, therefore, this matter be heard finally at this stage.

Let the matter be listed on 14.11.2006 for final disposal.

Sd/- Krishan Kumar Achara,J"

Today this matter was listed for in Court or orders and at the request of the learned counsel for the parties, matter is finally heard and decided. 5. Heard submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment and record of the case. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant assailed the judgment of the learned trial Court and submits that appellant has been acquitted of the charges under Section 8/17 and 8/18 NDPS

Act vide judgment and order dated 31.3.05 but separate proceedings under Section 60 and 63 were ordered to initiate regarding recovered amount Rs.15,032/- from the accused appellant at the instance and information under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act by the accused appellant. After getting reply dated 19.10.2005 by the appellant and the evidence, it is crystal clear that Rs.16,500/- was received by the appellant Receipt Ex.D-1 for selling of buffalo from

Bhakra Ram. This also stated by the appellant under the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he is innocent and

Rs.15,032/- be got from the sale of buffalo and not related to the opium. This finding of the learned trial Court is against the evidence and deserves to be set aside and the recovered amount should be refunded to the appellant. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor contended that the order of the learned trial Court cannot be treated to be wrong because amount has been recovered by the information of the appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence

Act so appeal should be dismissed. 8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence discussed above, without connecting the evidence with the amount recovered and amount not relates to sell of opium, therefore, finding of the learned trial

Court cannot be upheld and deserves to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and order dated 7.6.2006 passed by the learned Special

Judge, NDPS Cases Court, Jodhpur,passed in Cr.Misc. Case

No.144/2005( Sessions case No.48/2002) for confiscating

Rs.15,032/- is set aside. The said confiscated amount of

Rs.15,032/- will be refunded to the appellant, Sukh Ram s/o

Haring Ram.and. The record of the case may be sent forthwith. The copy of this order may also be sent to the

Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Jodhpur for compliance of the judgment.

(CHATRA RAM JAT )J.

CKThanvi


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.