TMI Blog1999 (10) TMI 725X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... premise that he had a previous conviction of an offence under the Act. Therefore, the Trial Court awarded enhanced sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 16 years and a fine of ₹ 2 lakhs. Though the High Court confirmed the conviction under both counts the Division Bench of the High Court reduced the sentence of rigorous imprisonment to 10 years and six months and a fine of ₹ 1 lakh. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us is that the mandatory requirement in S.50 of the Act has not been complied with. It is recited in the judgment that PW 1, before the search was conducted, asked the appellant whether he required to be produced before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate for the purpose of search and that the appellant answered in the negative. In order to ascertain whether the said recital is authentic, we calle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, such information may not necessarily be in writing. (2) That failure to inform the person concerned about the existence of his right to be searched before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate would cause prejudice to an accused. If the accused, who was subjected to search was merely asked whether he required to be searched in the presence of a gazetted officer or a Magistrate it cannot be tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id view it is unnecessary for us to consider whether conviction under S.31 of the Act need be sustained. Nevertheless, we may point out that S.31 was invoked by the Trial Court on the strength of the conviction imposed on the appellant in Sessions Case No. 21 of 1989 of the same Trial Court though the said conviction has been confirmed by the High Court. We may point out that this Court has interf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
