BAJRANGI SINGH Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole accused-appellant Bajrangi Singh preferred this appeal U/S. 374(2) Cr. P.C. read with Section 36(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 23-2-94 passed by the learned Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar in Special Case No. 13(A)/1991 convicting the sole accused-appellant named above u/S. 18 read with Section 8(e) of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 and sentencing him to undergo RI for 10 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in default to suffer RI for further period of 5 years.

(2.) This will not be out of place to mention that this Criminal Appeal was disposed of by this Court on 15-6-95 looking into the material so available on record in absence of the appellant's lawyer because no one represented the appellant for last two consecutive dates as a result of which the matter was taken up, the learned Public Prosecutor was heard and the appeal was dismissed. Against the said order of dismissal dated 15-6-95 the appellant preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1606/95 and the Apex Court vide its order dated 4-12-95 set aside the judgment dated 15-6-95 passed by this Court in this appeal and desired that the High Court should hear the said appeal afresh giving opportunity to the appellant to appear through lawyer of his choice in order to expedite the hearing of the appeal with a further direction that the counsel for the appellant should appear before this Court on 8-1-96 fixing up a date for the hearing. In pursuance of the order so passed by the Apex Court, the learned counsel for the appellant Mr. A. K. Bhattacharyya appeared and made a prayer for fresh hearing of the matter in the background of the aforesaid order of the Apex Court and in consequence thereof this appeal is heard afresh. The appellant is represented by his learned counsel Mr. A. K. Bhattacharya whereas the State of Assam-respondent is represented by Mrs. K. Deka, the learned Public Prosecutor. Both the sides lawyers are heard at length.

(3.) On behalf of the appellant, his learned counsel Mr. A. K. Bhattacharyya submitted that there are sufficient grounds warranting interference of the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence so passed which are also indicated broadly in the memo of appeal so preferred. Firstly, it is pointed out that at the time of the search so conducted the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act was not strictly observed which was mandatory and non-compliance of which has vitiated the whole trial and thus only on this count, the accused-appellant is entitled to be acquitted.