Result of U.P. Higher Judicial Service (Main Written) Examination, 2014 Direct Recruitment to U.P. Higher Judicial Service held on 14th, 15th and 16th November, 2014 has been declared. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur notified Advertisement for recruitment additional district judges through M.P. Higher Judicial Service (Entry Level) Direct Recruitment for BAR, Exam 2015 Haryana Judicial Services Examination 2014-Pre is conducted on 10th of Jan 2015. The result is awaited. THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI will hold examination for direct recruitment against 14 vacancies to Delhi Higher Judicial Service on Sunday, the 06th April,2014-Last Date 06.02.2014 13/11/2013: While renewing the term of the appointment of the existing incumbents the State Government is required to consider their past performance and conduct in the light of the recommendations made by the District Judges and the District Magistrates. Therefore, the High Court could not have issued a Mandamus for renewal of the term of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and other similarly situated persons and thereby frustrated the provisions of LR Manual and Section 24 Cr.P.C .- SUPREME COURT.
HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT
Go Back to High Court Judgements
  Date 11/5/2009 12:00:00 AM
  Court Allahabad High Court
  Parties Shyam Bahadur Mau Vs. State
  Appeal Bails - 5257 of 2008
  Act N.D.P.S.Act - 50,57
  Judgement
  Hon`ble Ashwani Kumar Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the entire record of the case. The allegation against the applicant is that 20 kg of Charas, which is above the commercial quantity was recovered from the bag and the same was tied at the back of motorcycle. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the provisions as laid down in Sections 50 & 57 of N.D.P.S. Act have not been complied with. The second submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that no independent witnesses have been cited as witness of recovery. In support of his argument, he cited two cases of Hon`ble Supreme Court, one Dilip and another Vs. State of M.P. (2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases 450 and another Ritesh Chakarvarti Vs. State of M.P. reported in (2006) 12 Supreme Court Cases 321. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the provisions of Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act are not attracted in the present case as the recovery of 20 kg. of charas was made from the bag, which the applicant was carrying tied at the back of motorcycle. The condition in which the provisions of Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act is to be followed has been laid down in the three Judges decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of H.P. v. Pawan Kumar (2005) 4 SCC 350: 2005 (1) EFR 2008. In paragraphs 10 and 11 of the decision it was observed as under: "10.We are not concerned here with the wide definition of the word "person", which in the legal world includes corporations, associations or body of individuals as factually in these type of cases search of their premises can be done and not of their person. Having regard to the scheme of the Act and the context in which it has been used in the section it naturally means a human being or a living individual unit and not an artificial person. The word has to be understood in a broad commonsense manner and, therefore, not a naked or nude body of a human being but the manner in which a normal human being will move about in a civilized society. Therefore, the most appropriate meaning of the word "person" appears to be- "the body of a human being as presented to public view usually with its appropriate coverings and clothing in a civilized society appropriate coverings and clothing." In a civilized society appropriate coverings and clothings are considered absolutely essential and no sane human being comes in the gave of others without appropriate coverings and clothings. The appropriate coverings will include footwear also as normally it is considered an essential article to be worn while moving outside ones home. Such appropriate coverings or clothings or footwear, after being worn move along with the human body without any appreciable or extra effort. Once worn, they would not normally get detached from the body of the human being unless some specific effort in that directions is made. For interpreting the provisions, rare cases of some religious monks and sages who according to the tenets of their religious belief do not cover their body with clothings are not be taken notice of. Therefore he word "person" would mean a human being with appropriate coverings and clothings and also footwear." "11. A bag, brief case or any such article or container, etc. can, under no circumstances be treated as body of a human being. They are given a separate name and are identifiable as such. They cannot even remotely be treated to be part of the body of a human being. Depending upon the physical capacity of a person, he may carry any number of items like a bag, a briefcases, a suitcase, a tin box, a thaila, a jhola, a gathari, a holdall, a carton, etc. of varying size, dimension or weight. However, while carrying or moving along with them, some extra effort or energy would be required. They would have to be carried either by the hand or hung on the shoulder or back or placed on the head. In common parlance it would be said that a person is carrying a particular article, specifying the manner in which it was carried like hand, shoulder back or head etc. Therefore, it is not possible to include these articles within the ambit of the word "person" occurring in Section 50 of the Act." Thus, the observation of the Hon`ble Apex Court makes it crystal clear that the recovery of any Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances from any place other than the person would in no way attract Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act as in the present case. Next with regard to compliance of Section 57 of N.D.P.S. Act the learned State counsel contends that the provision is not mandatory but is directory and there has been substantial compliance of this provision as mentioned in the counter affidavit filed by the State. In reply to the last submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that there is no independent witness of recovery and also that no endeavour efforts were made by the police officer to have independent witness of the recovery. It may be pointed out at the very outset that this recovery of 20 kg. of charas from the bag of the accused applicant was made on the National Highway i.e. Assam road and the police officer, who was conducting the search made his earnest effort to procure independent witness as it is specifically mentioned in the FIR/recovery memo."Ghatana ke samay aane jane wale rahgiro ko rok-kar gawahi ke liye kaha gaya, kintu koi tayar nahi hua", as such the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant has no force because every possible effort was made by the police officer to procure independent witness and since they themselves were not ready to come forward as witness of recovery, the Police Officer had no option than to proceed and complete the formalities of recovery in accordance with law. It is also mentioned in the recovery memo that all the directives given by Honble High Court and Human Rights Commission were followed during the course of arrest. The two citations cited above by the learned counsel for the applicant are that one Dilip and another Vs. State of M.P. (2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases 450 and another Ritesh Chakarvarti Vs. State of M.P. reported in (2006) 12 Supreme Court Cases 321, with regard to the independent witness it may be said that the facts and circumstances of the cases of the Honble Apex Court are totally different from the facts and circumstances of the present case. In short, it can be said that in the present case since the recovery was made on Highway as such it was not possible to procure independent witness moreover the averments in the recovery memeo shows that every possible efforts were made to procure independent witness. In the present case, since the recovery made was of 20 kg. of charas from the bag, which was carried by accused-applicant, who had brought this charas from Nepal, as confessed. The accused applicant is a citizen of Nepal as mentioned in the bail application itself, as such, the provisions of Section 37 of N.D.P.S. Act should also be looked into, as required. The provisions of Section 37 (1) (b) (ii) is quoted below:- "(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail." It may be repeated again that in this case, the applicant is a resident of Nepal and the recovery made from him is of 20 kg. of charas, which is more than commercial quantity and the same was brought from Nepal. Learned counsel for the applicant tried to assure the court on the point that if the applicant is released on bail, he is ready to file local sureties. I do not agree with the contentions made by learned counsel for the applicant as it has repeatedly been stressed by the Apex Court that it is plain from the language of Section 37(1)(b) that the court must adopt a negative attitude towards bail, but turn positive firstly, if it is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of offence under the Act and secondly that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Both these tests must be satisfied before bail can be granted. In the instant case, the accused-applicant has been arrested along with 20 kg.of charas recovered from his bag, which he was carrying and there is no violation of any mandatory provisions of N.D.P.S. Act. The accused-applicant is resident of a different country i.e. Nepal and it can be very well said that even the local sureties would not be able to control him from fleeing away to his own country and also that it can not be said that he would not indulge in any offence, while on bail. Considering the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned counsel for the State, I find no good ground for releasing the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the application for bail is rejected.