LexSTATE OF RAJASTHAN versus JAINUDEEN SHEKHANDANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2015] 10 S.C.R. 542 STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. JAINUDEEN SHEKHANDANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 1085 of 2015) AUGUST 25, 2015. [DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.250 - C Compensation for accusation without reasonable cause - Respondents arraigned as accused for the offences punishable u/ss. 8121(8) and 8129 of the 1985Act- Grant of compensation to the respondents by the Special Judge since they suffered illegal custody on account of delay in getting 0 the seized articles tested from Forensic Science Laboratory and the test showed that the seized items did not contain any contraband artic!e - Said order upheld by the High Court - On appeal, held: Delay is the fulcrum of the reasoning for acquittal - It is apt to note that police while patrolling noticed E that the behaviour the accused persons at that time was suspicious - There was no lapse on the part of the seizing officer, no evidence to show that the prosecution had falsely implicated them and there was no ma/a fide or malice - High Court did not apply its mind to the concept of grant of F compensation to the accused persons - Thus, order of the trial judge granting compensation and High Court upholding the same, set aside - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. G Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: On a close scrutiny of the judgment of the trial judge, it is evident that he has been guided basically by three factors, namely, that the State Government has H 542 STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. JAINUDEEN SHEKH 543 not established Forensic Science Laboratories despite A the orders passed by this Court; that there has been delay in getting the seized articles tested; and that the seizing officer had not himself verified by using his experience and expertise that the contraband article was opium. As far as the first aspect is concerned, it is a B different matter altogether. As far as the delay is concerned that is the fulcrum of the reasoning for acquittal. It is apt to note that the police while patrolling had noticed the accused persons and their behaviour at that time was suspicious. There is nothing on record C to suggest that there was any lapse on the part of the seizing officer. Nothing has been brought by way of evidence to show that the prosecution had falsely implicated them. There is nothing to remotely suggest 0 that there was any malice. The High Court did not apply its mind to the concept of grant of compensation to the accused persons. Thus, the view expressed by the trial judge is absolutely indefensible and the affirmance thereof by the High Court is wholly unsustainable. [Paras E 12-13] [551-G-H, 552-A-E] Dau/at Ram v. State of Haryana (1996) 11 SCC 711; Mohd. Zahid v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (1998) 5 SCC 419: 1998 (3) SCR 311; State, represented by Inspector of Police and others v. N.M. T. Joy Immaculate (2004) 5 SCC 729: 2004 (2 ) Suppl. SCR 71; Hardeep Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2012) 1SCC748- referred to. Case Law Reference (1996) 11 sec 111 1998 ( 3) SCR 311 referred to. referred to. Para 8 Para 9 F G 2004 (2 ) Suppl. SCR 71 referred to. Para 1 O H 544 A SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 10 S.C.R. (2012) 1 sec 748 referred to. Para 11 CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: CriminalAppeal No. 1085 of 2015 8 From the Judgment and Order dated 30.09.2014 of the High Court of Judicature for Raja~than at Jodhpur in Criminal Revision Petition No. 449 of 2014. S. S. Shamshery, AAG, Amit Sharma, Sandeep Singh, Pranaya Kumar Mahapatra, Milind Kumar for the Appellant. c The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DIPAK MISRA, J. 1. The pivotal issue that emanates for consideration in this appeal, by special leave, is whether the D learned Special Judge was justified in granting compensation of an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-to each of the respondents who had been arraigned as accused for the offences punishable under Sections 8/21 (8) and 8/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity, "the NDPS E Act") on the foundation that there was delay in obtaining the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory and further the test showed that the seized items did not contain any contraband article and; therefore, they had suffered illegal custody, and whether the High Court has correctly appreciated F the fact situation to affirm the view expressed by the learned trial Judge by opining that the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.