Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Khem Singh vs The State Of Rajasthan on 1 March, 2019
Bench: A.M. Khanwilkar, Ajay Rastogi
1
ITEM NO.32 COURT NO.11 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 1953/2019
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 16-01-2019
in SBCRM No. 1324/2018 passed by the High Court Of Judicature For
Rajasthan At Jaipur)
KHEM SINGH Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.34187/2019-EXEMPTION FROM FILING
C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.34186/2019-EXEMPTION FROM
FILING O.T.)
Date : 01-03-2019 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Salman Khurshid, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Kamran Malik, Adv.
Mr. Maruf Khan, Adv.
Mr. Majhar Hussain, Adv.
Ms. Shama Usmani, Adv.
Ms. Aamna, Adv.
Mr. Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary, AOR
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Applications for exemption from filing Signature Not Verified certified copy of the impugned order and from Digitally signed by NEETU KHAJURIA Date: 2019.03.02 12:15:17 IST Reason: filing official translation are allowed.
Learned counsel was at pains to point out the evidence of PW-1 regarding the manner in which 2 packets of opium were recovered at the site, and to contend that there was a clear violation of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘the Act’) owing to which the said recovery cannot be relied upon.
It is further pointed out that the Trial Court had adverted to the factum of personal search but failed to deal with the grievance of the petitioner regarding the violation of Section 50 of the Act in its proper perspective.
It appears that this argument was not canvassed before the High Court when the appeal was taken up for hearing and for consideration of suspension of sentence. If it is a case of violation of Section 50 of the Act and that is the limited ground on which the appeal ought to succeed, as argued by the petitioner, the High Court could have considered the same at the admission stage and finally disposed of the appeal on that basis or on such other issue(s) which may arise for consideration.
Be that as it may, we grant liberty to the petitioner to renew the prayer for suspension of sentence before the High Court, if the appeal is not 3 taken up for final hearing within one year from today.
The special leave petition is disposed of accordingly.
(NEETU KHAJURIA) (VIDYA NEGI)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER