LexUNION OF INDIA versus MOHANLAL & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 6 S.C.R. 823 UNION OF INDIA v. MOHANLAL & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 652 of 2012) JULY 3, 2012 [T.S. THAKUR AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 .. ss. 8!18(b) rlw s. 29 and 52A - Charge u!ss. 8!18(b) rlw s. 29 A B - Impugned order acquitting the accused on the ground that C failure to produce the contraband before co11rt, in absence of proof that the same was destroyed as per prevalent procedure, implies failure to prove its seizure - In appeal, brought to the notice of the Supreme Court that States not following the procedure prescribed for destruction of the seized contraband D resulting in accumulation of the seized contrabands increasing chances of its pilferage and re-circulation - Held: Destruction of seized contraband Is not only the statutory duty but a constitutional mandate - India being the signatory to United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic and Narcotic E Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, is required to reduce the vulnerability of the contrabands to substitution or theft during its storage - In view of SAARC Convention for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, 1990, authorities concerned required to take follow up action to eliminate drug F abuse - Directions issued for collection of information, as regards Seizure, Storage, Disposal/Destruction and Judicial Supervision, from the police heads of each State through the Secretary concerned relating to the nature and extent of the problem and the available measures - Queries enumerated G - Direction to Chief Secretaries of the States to serve a questionnaire on the above lines to the Director General of Police of the State for a report - Registrar General of the High Court in each State to Pe Nodal Officer and to ensure 823 H \ 824 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 6 S.C.R. A collections of the reports from the Chief Secretary of the Stare concerned and submit the report to the Supreme Court, containing a summary of the information - Answer to the queries specified under the head 'Judicial Supervision' to be collected by the Registrar Generals of the High Court B independently from the District and Sessions Judges concerned - Direction also to Chief of the agencies viz. Narcotics Control Bureau, Central Bureau of Narcotics, Directorate General of Revenue Intelligence and Commissionerates of Customs and Central Excise Including c Indian Coast Guard, to issue similar questionnaire to the officers concerned and submit a report before Supreme Court - Standing Order No. 1189 and Circular dated 22nd February, 2011 issued by Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 47 0 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 451 - United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic and Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances - SAARC Convention for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, 1990. Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (2002) 10 E SCC 283: 2002 (3) Suppl. SCR 39 - referred to. Case Law Reference: 2002 (3) Suppl. SCR 39 Referred to Para 5 F CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal G No. 652 of 2012. From the Judgment & Order dated 05.01.2010 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh bench at Indore in Criminal Appeal No. 193 of 2008. Ajit Kumar Sinha, R.P. Bhat, Sushma Manchanda, Shreekant N. Terdal for the Appellant. Sunil Verma, Pradeep Kumar Kaushik, Sanjay Sharawat H for the Respondents. UNION OF INDIA v. MOHANLAL & ANR. 825 The order of the Court was delivered by T.S. THAKUR, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the Union of India against the judgment and order of the High Court of. Madhya Pradesh at Indore in Criminal Appeal No.193 of 2008 whereby the High Court has acquitted the respondents A B of the charges framed againstthem under Section 8/18(b) read with Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, primarily for the reason that no evidence regarding the destruction of the 3.36 Kgs. of opium allegedly seized from the respondents had been provided by the prosecution. In the absence of any evidence to show that the C seized contraband was destroyed as per the prevalent procedure, the contraband should have been, according to the High Court, produced before the Trial Court. The failure of the prosecution to do so, therefore, implies a failure to prove the seizure of the contraband from the possession
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.