Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + SC Customs - 2003 (12) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2003 (12) TMI 589 - SUPREME COURTWhether the requirements of Section 50 have been met? Held that:- The use of the expression 'substantial compliance' was made in the background that the searching officer had Section 50 in mind and it was unaided by the interpretation placed on it by the Constitution Bench in Baldev Singh's case (1999 (7) TMI 630 - SUPREME COURT). A line or a word in a judgment cannot be read in isolation or as if interpreting a statutory provision, to impute a different meaning to the observations. Above being the position, we find no substance in the plea that there was non-compliance with the requirements of Section 50 of the Act. It was pleaded that the requirements of Section 57 have not been complied with. There was no material placed either before the trial Court or the High Court to substantiate such a plea. The grievance in this regard does not merit any consideration, leave alone the impact of it on the guilt and conviction of the accused. Additionally, it may also be noticed that while giving statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the accused did not say that he was unaware of his rights or that he was misled on that account in any manner. On the contrary, in general and vague manner it was only said that he did not know or he had no idea of the allegations. Though that by itself is not sufficient to convict accused, in view of the procedural safeguards required to be observed by compliance with the requirements of Section 50, yet that is of some relevance in appreciating the grievance, now sought to be ventilated. There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment to warrant interference.
|