LexK. CHITHHAYAN versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 8 S.C.R. 941 -) K. CHITHHAYAN A V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU (Criminal Appeal No. 827 of 2005) May 15, 2008 B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ] NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUB- STANCES ACT, 1985: ss 42(2), 43 and 50 - Search of bag belonging to ac- c cused conducted in a public place-Bag contained contraband item - Conviction by trial court and sentence of 10 years RI - Upheld by High Court - HELD: Since search was made in public place and not in a building, s. 43 and not s.42(2) was applicable-As there was no personal search, s.50 has no ap- D ~ plication - There is no infirmity in judgment of High Court to warrant interference. The appellant was found carrying 2 kg Diazepam in a bag. The trial court convicted him uls 22 of the Narcotic E Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and sen- tenced him to 10 years rigorous imprisonment. The con- viction and sentence was upheld by the High Court. In the instant appeal it was contended for the appel- lant that the courts below failed to take into consideration F that there was non-compliance of requirements of sec- tions 42(2) and 50 of the Act. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. So far as Section 42(2) of the Narcotic Drugs G .. and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is concerned, it is to be noted that search was made in public place and not in a building and, as such, Section 43 and not Section 42(2) of the Act was applicable. [para 6] [945-D-E] 941 H . fl 942 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R. A State of Punjab vs. Baldev Singh 1999 (6) SCC 172; 1- State of Haryana v. Jamail Singh and Ors. 2004 (5) SCC 188 - relied on 2. As regards applicability of Section 50 of the Act, B there was search of the bag carried by the appellant and there was no personal search. Therefore, Section 50 of the Act has no application. [para 7] [942-F] State of H.P v Pawan Kumar 2005 (4) SCC 350-relied on ¥ 3. There is no infirmity in the judgment of the High c Court to warrant interference. [para 8] [942-G] CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 827 of 2005 From the final Judgment and Order dated 4.8.2003 of the D High Court of Judicature at Madras in C.A. No. 653/2001 K. Sarada Devi for the Appellant. R.Shunmugasundaram, S.J.Aristotle, Prabu Ramasubramanian and V.G. Pragasam for the Respondent. E The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court up- holding the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable un- ,( F der Section 8 (c) read with Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short the 'Act') and sen- tence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,00,000/ - as was imposed by learned Special Judge, Salem. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: G Veerannan (PW-1), Sub Inspector of Police, attached to • N.l.B. C.l.D., Salem on 16.12.1999 at about 9.00 A.M. along with Vellingiri (PW-4), Head Constable No.910 and other Po- lice party on . secret i,nformation were patrolling at H Pethanayakkampalaym Bus Stop. They found activities of the K. CHITHHAYAN v. STATE OF 943 TAMIL NADU [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] - )- appellant/accused, who stood near the bus stop with a yellow A colour bag on his right hand, at about 12.00 noon, to be suspi- cious. P.W.1 after introducing himself, conveyed to him that he is entitled for the conduct of the search before a Gazetted Of- ficer or a Judicial Magistrate. The accused gave consent to be searched by the official himself. Accordingly, P.W.1 searched B his bag in the presence of the two independent witnesses namely Duraisamy (PW-2), Village Administrative Assistant and ' Duraisamy Assistant (PW-3) and P.W.4 Head Constable and found 2 Kilograms of Diazepam. P.W.1 seized the same under Ex.P2 mahazar in the presence of the said witnesses. He took c two samples of 25 grams each marked as M.0.2 and affixed the seal and the rest of the contraband was sealed, which is marked as M.0.1.The appellant/accused was arrested under Ex.P3 arrest memo, a copy of which was served on him. The accused was brought to the Office, and a case was registered D in Crime No. 91/99 under Sec. 20(b) (1) of the Act. Ex.P4 printed F.l.R. was prepared. The accused was taken to the concerned Court along with the F.l.R and the material objects. A detailed report under Ex.P5 under Sec.57 o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.