UNION OF INDIA Vs. A. SADIKKEEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "We are reminded of Justice Felix Frankfurter's immortal words in Antonio Richard Rochin v. People of the State of California [96 L. Ed. 183 (1951)], coincidentally a case pertaining to narcotics, wherein he described some types of conduct by state agents, although not specifically prohibited by explicit language in the Constitution, as those that "shock the conscience" in that they offend "those canons of decency and fairness which express the notions of justice." Due process of law requires the state to observe those principles that are "so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental." The general state of affairs pertaining to trials of offences under the NDPS Act deserves a similar description; The laxity with which we throw citizens into prison reflects our lack of appreciation for the tribulations of incarceration; the callousness with which we leave them there reflects our lack of deference for humanity." So said the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1640 of 2010, dated 23 -1 -2013 (Thana Singh v. Central Bureau of Narcotics). Perhaps, this is the only case under the Special Enactment, viz. the NDPS Act, where the word 'notice' had been decorating the docket for a long number of years.

(2.) EVEN between the first and second entry, there had been a long wait of 9 years. The first entry and the second entry reads as under:

(3.) THE main ground of appeal is that when the search of the baggages of the accused and seizure of contraband took place in a public place, the question of complying with provisions of Section 42(2) of the Act, will not arise and the provision applicable is Section 43 of the NDPS Act.