SHANMUGHAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) Mr. S. Samuel Rajapandian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has persuaded me that in arresting the third accused, the petitioner herein, section 42(2) of the N.D.P.S. Act has not been complied with, which is a mandatory one and that in as much as the same has not been followed, it is totally adverse to the plea of the respondent. Then. he has added the attacks on the basis of non-compliance of the mandatory provision of Section 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act

(3.) While countering the said attacks, Mr. P. Rajamanickam the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent would raise a legal question that in view of the non obstante clause provided in Sec. 37 (b) of the N.D.P.S. Act and particularly in the context of the legal ratio held by the Apex Court in Kishanlal and others v. N.C.B. Delhi, the power of this court to grant bail for non-compliance of the procedural laches has been taken away and that therefore, the learned counsel, would contend, that the ratio held by the Apex Court in the above case law while dealing with Section 37(b) is totally absolute and that even assuming that there was some laches in compliance of the directions, the embargo under Sec. 37(b) of the said Act, cannot be avoided and that therefore, the learned counsel objected for the petitioner being enlarged on bail.