SUKHAVINDER SINGH HARBHAJANSING Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of the present criminal appeal filed under section 374 of Cr.P.C by appellant Sukhavinder Singh aggrieved of the judgment passed by the learned Special Judge (under NDPS Act), Dhar in Special Sessions Trial no 01/2005 decided on 30th of January, 2008, by which, the learned Special Judge convicted the appellant under section 8 (c) read with section 18(b) of the NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo R. I for ten years with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/ - and, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I for two years.

(2.) THE appellant is in custody for about eight years and has filed the present appeal primarily on the ground that his conviction and sentence is not sustainable for the reason that there has been non -compliance of mandatory provision under section 42 (2) as well as section 52 -A of the NDPS Act. It is also his case that independent punch witness Lalu PW -1 has not supported the case of the prosecution and his signatures were taken on blank papers. It is also his case that no other independent witness was examined by the prosecution before the Court. It is also his case that there has been malaflde intention of the police in prosecuting the appellant and for which complaint was also made and the same were found to be true. It is also his case that the police witnesses were the habitual offender.

(3.) COUNSEL for the appellant has relied upon the judgment delivered in the case of Uma Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2005 (1) MPHT, 233 on the point that if the accused does not understand the language in which notices were served upon, then it is a fatal ground and the proceedings taken against him are bound to be vitiated. He has also relied upon the judgment delivered in the case of Ramaswamy Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2005 (1) MPHT, 276 to the same point. He has also relied upon the judgment delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Valsala Vs. State of Kerla reported in AIR 1994 SC 117 where it has been held that when there is delay in depositing the seized article to Court and there is no evidence to show that the article was seized and kept in proper custody in police station, case of the prosecution has to be taken with serious doubt and may affect the prosecution.