LexNARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU versus DILIP PRALHAD NAMADE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU V. DILIP PRALHAD NAMADE MARCH 18, 2004 B [DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: S. 3 7-Bail-Non-supply of copies of documents to accused-Effect of- C Accused facing trial for offences under the Act-His bail application rejected by Special Court-Bail granted by High Court holding that direction given by Special Judge for supply of copies of documents was not complied withe-- Held, the scope and ambit of s. 37 was not kepi in view by High Court-Mere non-compliance of the order passed for supply of copies, if any, cannot entitle D an accused to get bail notwithstanding prohibitions contained in s.37---Case is not one to which the exceptions provided in s.37 can be applied- Circumslances under which the bail can be granted in the background of s.37 indicated-Judgment of High Court granting bail to accused has no legal sanction and as such is set aside. E Union of India v. Thamisharasi and Ors., JT (1995) 4 SC 253, relied on. Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 136 and 141-Disposal of petition for special leave-Effect of-Accused facing trial for offences under Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act-Bail rejected by Special Court but F granted by High Court holding that direction given by Special Judge for supply of copies of documents was not complied with-Plea of long passage of time, relying upon earlier orders passed by Supreme Court in some SLPs- He/d,-Disposa/ of an SLP against a judgment of High Court does not mean that the said judgment is affirmed by such dismissal-The order passed in any G SLP al the threshold without detailed reasons does not constitute any declaration of law or constitute a binding precedent-Supreme court cannot and does not reverse or modifY the decree or order appealed against while deciding the petition for special leave to appeal and that loo when the SLP was being dismissed-What is impugned before Supreme Court can be reversed . H 92 T NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU v. D.P. NAMADE [PASAYAT. J.] 93 or modified only afier granting leave and then assuming appellate jurisdiction A over it-If the order impugned before Supreme Court cannot be reversed or modified at the SLP stage, obviously that order cannot also be affirmed at the SLP stage. Union of India and Ors. v. Jaipal Singh, (2003) 7 Supreme 676; Kunhayamlned and Ors. v. State of Kera/a and Anr., 120001 6 SCC 359 and B Shri Ramnik Vallabhdas Madvane and Ors. v. Taraben Pravinlal Madhvani, (2003) 8 Supreme 208, relied on. "CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 349 of 2004. From the Judgment and Order dated 19.12.2002 of the Bombay High Court in Crl. A. No. 2892 of 2002. L. Nageshwara Rao, Additional Solicitor General, Sanjay R. Hegde and Ms. Sushma Suri for the Appellant. E.C. Agrawala, Mahesh Agarwal and Rishi Agrawal for the Respondent. The following Order of the Court was delivered : ARIJI'r-PASA YAT, J. Leave granted. Grant of bail to the respondent by a learned Single judge of Bombay High Court is questioned by the Narcotics Control Bureau (in short the "NCB"). The respondent is facing trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 29 read with Sections 8( c ),22,28 and 30 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the 'NDPS Act'). The allegations against the respondent Di lip Pralhad Namade (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') were that he was involved in the manufacturing of mandrax tablets and he is the person who has supplied the technical know how of preparation for the tablets. c D E F Officers of the appellant- Bureau , Mumbai Zonal Unit, got information G that one Suresh Faturmal Jain was travelling in a red Ford Escort car and was carrying 20,000 Mandrax Tablets to be delivered to two persons at a particular place. Acting on the information, two officers of the Bureau went to the vicinity of the place where the tablets were to be delivered. Two persons were called to act as Panchas. They found that there were three persons travelling in the. car. The officers searched the car and arrested all the three H 94 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 3 S.C.R. A occupants. One of them were Suresh Futornial Jain and others were Karakutti Karan Anthony and Rajeev Shirook. From the bags, 20 Kgm. of Mandrax Tablets were recovered. Statement of all the three accused persons were recorded and on the basis of cert
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.