STATE Vs. VIDYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Certain provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereafter shortly 'the Act') came for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sudarshan Kumar, 1989 Cri LJ 1412. In these cases the accused had either been discharged since the prosecution had failed to produce the notifications under Ss. 41 or 42 and/or the trial Court had found that the provisions of Ss. 50 and 55 of the Act had not been complied with although they were mandatory in nature. In come cases, the accused had been convicted and sentenced to the minimum rigorous imprisonment prescribed under the Act and the decisions had been assailed on merits. In these cases also it had been submitted that the mandatory provisions of the Act had not been complied with and the convictions were liable to be set aside.

(2.) The matter was examined quite exhaustively and it was held that the provisions of Ss. 41(2), 42(2) and 50(1) of the Act are mandatory in nature, in case the investigation is started on the basis of an advance information. Similarly, Ss. 52(1) and 57 of the Act were also found mandatory in character but Ss. 52(2), 52(3) and 55 of the Act were held directory, unless miscarriage of justice to the accused was there.

(3.) Although, as noticed above, the Bench had before it cases defected on the basis of prior information, but it discussed cases of chance recovery. It is important to reproduce the opinion of the Court on this question. :