Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 25]

Supreme Court of India

State Of Rajasthan vs Bhopa Ram on 26 October, 2010

Bench: Harjit Singh Bedi, Chandramauli Kr. Prasad

           CRL. A. NO. 37 of 2006

                                              1





                              IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                             CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 37 OF 2006




           STATE OF RAJASTHAN                      .....          APPELLANT



                                           VERSUS



           BHOPA RAM                               .....          RESPONDENT





                                        O0 R D E R




         1.         We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

         2.         This   appeal   against   acquittal   arises   from   the 

         judgment   of   the   High   Court   in   a   prosecution   under   Section 

         8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 

         The trial court, relying on the evidence of P.Ws. 4, 5, 11 

         and   12,   convicted   the   respondent   and   sentenced   him   to 

         undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to a fine of 

         Rs. 1 lakh and in default thereof to further undergo simple 

         imprisonment for a period of six months.   The judgment of 

         the   trial   court   has   been   reversed   in   appeal.     The   High 

         Court has recorded a positive finding  that the prosecution 

         story   given   in   Exhibit   P2   the   notice   issued   under   Section 

         50 of the Act was a concoction.   In other words, the High 


CRL. A. NO. 37 of 2006

                                              2





         Court   has   doubted   the   very   factum   of   the   recovery.     Dr. 

         Manish Singhvi, the learned Additional Advocate General for 

         the   State   has,   however,   argued   that   in   the   facts   of   the 

         case,   Section   50   was   not   applicable.     This   submission   is 

         undoubtedly correct insofar as the import of the provision 

         is concerned but the High Court has on a consideration of 

         the   evidence   held   that   as   Exhibit   P2   had   been   apparently 

         created after the recovery had been made and there appeared 

         to be some doubt as regards the recovery itself casting a 

         doubt on the conduct of the investigation.  We are thus not 

         inclined to interfere in this matter.

                    We, accordingly, dismiss the appeal.

          




                                                   ...........................

J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI] ........................... J [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD] NEW DELHI OCTOBER 26, 2010.