Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + SC Customs - 1995 (11) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1995 (11) TMI 433 - SUPREME COURTWhether the learned Sessions Judge was justified, at the stage of taking cognizance of the offence, in discharging the accused, even before the trial was conducted on merits, on the ground that the provisions of Section 50 of the Act had not been complied with? Held that:- The evidence collected in a search in violation of law does not become inadmissible in evidence under the Evidence Act. The consequence would be that evidence discovered would be to prove unlawful possession of the contraband under the Act. It is founded Panchnama to seize the contraband from the possession of the suspect/accused. Though the search may be illegal but the evidence collected, i.e., Panchnama etc.. nonetheless would be admissible at the trial. At the stage of filing charge-sheet it cannot be said that there is no evidence and the Maeistruie or the Sessions Judge would be committing illegality to discharge the accused on the ground that Section 50 or other provisions have not been complied with. At the trial an opportunity would be available to the prosecution to prove that the search was conducted in accordance with law. Even if search is found to be in violation of law, what weight should be given to the evidence collected is yet another question to be gone into. Under these circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in discharging the accused, after filing of the charge-sheet holding that mandatory requirements of Section 50 had not been complied with. As more than ten years have passed and the contraband seized is not of a considerable magnitude, we think that it is not a lit case to remit at this stage for trial but non-remittance on facts of this case should not be used as precedent in future cases.
|