LexMAN SINGH & ANR. versus STATE OF M.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 13 S.C.R. 966
.. ~
A
MAN SINGH & ANR.
v.
STATE OF M.P.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1516 of 2008)
B
SEPTEMBER 24, 2008
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.]
Practice and Procedure ""'7 Disposal of criminal appeal of
c accused in absence of his counsel - Propriety of - Convic-
tion unde1r NDPS Act, 1985 - Accused sentenced to 20 years
RI - He filed appeal - On the date, matter was taken up by
High Court, Advocate appointed through Legal Aid Commit-
tee for accused did not appear - High Court heard the matter
D with assistance of a panel lawyer for the State and dismissed
the appeal without engaging another counsel or appointing
an Amicus Curiae - Held: Considering the seriousness of the
offence, it would have been appropriate for the High Court to
ask the Legal Aid Committee to appoint another counsel -
E Matter remitted back to High Court for fresh hearing - Nar-
cotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - ss. 8,
18, 21 and 29.
The Trial Court convicted Appellant under Section 8/
18(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
F Act, 1985 and in the alternative under Section 8/29/18(b)
~ -
of the Act and under Section 8/21 (c) and in the alternative
8/29/21(c) and in the alternative 8/28/2(c) of the Act and
sentenced him to 20 years RI. Appellant filed appeal be-
fore High Court.
G
On the date the matter was taken up by the High
Court, the Advocate appointed through the Legal Aid
Committee for the Appellant did not appear and the High
Court: heard the matter with the assistance of a panel law-
yer for the Respondent-State and dismissed the appeal
H
966
MAN SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF M.P.
967
··{
without engaging another counsel or app~inting an Am-
A
icus Curiae.
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter back to
High Court for fresh hearing, the Court
~
HELD: The High Court could have in the circum-
B
stances of the case required the Legal Aid Committee to
appoint another counsel. Considering the seriousness of
-\
the offence it would have been appropriate for the High
Court to do so. [Para 4] [968,E]
,,.
c
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
I
·No. 1516 of 2006
From the final Judgment and Order dated 18.4.2007 of
the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in Crl. Ap-
peal No. 1235 of 2003
D
Ashok Kumar Sharma, Sanjay Misra, Avinash Kumar Jain
and Yogesh for the Appellants.
C.D. Singh, Sunny Chowdhary, Vairagya Vardhan and
Aditya Singh for the Respondent.
E
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned
Single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur,
F
"/
Bench at Indore, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant
who had questioned his conviction for offence punishable un-
der Section 8/18(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter for short 'the Act') and in the
alternative under Section 8/29/18(b) of the Act and under Sec-
G
tion 8/21(c) and in the alternative 8/29/21(c) and in the alterna-
tive 8/28/2( c) of the Act and sentence of 20 years RI and fine of
~
rupees two lakhs with a stipulation that in the event of default of
payment of fine each of the accused/appellants would suffer RI
for 5 years. It appears that when the matter was taken up by the
H
968
SUPREME COURT REPORTS '
[2008] 13 S.C.R.
A High Court learned Advocate who was appointed through Le-
gal Aid Committee did not appear. Learned Single Judge heard
the matter with the assistance of the learned Panel Lawyer for
the respondent-State.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the law-
B yer who was appointed by the Legal Aid Committee did not
appear, when the matter was called, forthe reasons best known
to him and the High Court should not have dismissed the ap-
peal without engaging another counsel or at least without ap-
pointing an Amicus Curiae. Learned counsel for the respon-
"
C dent-State on the other hand submitted that the High Court has
analysed the relevant evidence including the evidence of PWs
9 and 10, who were the official witnesses. It is pointed out that
Sections 42 and 50 of the Act have no relevance because the
alleged seizure took place in a public place and search was not
D of person.
4. We need not deal with the merits of the case as we find
that the learned counsel appointed by the Legal Aid Committee
did not appear on the date fixed beExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.