Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1
PETITIONER:
SAYAR PURI
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/09/1998
BENCH:
G.T. NANAVATI, S.P.KURDUKAR
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
NANAVATI. J
The appellant has been convicted under Section 8
read with section 18 of the N.D.P.S. Act as he was found in
possession of opium. He is challenging his conviction in
this appeal.
The contention raised on behalf of the appellant is
that no site plan was prepared by the police to prove that
the place where the appellant was found sitting was a part
of the public road. In our opinion this contention is
misconceived. The police officers who were examined in this
case and also the bench witnesses have stated that the
accused was found sitting on a bench on the Mandia Road.
Thus the accused was found sitting on a public road and,
therefore, neither the procedure under Section 42(2) of the
Act was required to be followed nor the site plan was
required to be prepared. Another contention raised by the
appellant is that the requirements of Section 50 of the Act
have not been strictly complied with. We find no substance
in this contention. Section 50 prescribes the manner in
which the search of the person shall be conducted. No
breach of any particular condition has been pointed out.
Moreover, we find that P.W. 1 has stated in his evidence
that he had complied withe those conditions. P.W. 1 had
informed the appellant about his rights. He has further
stated that the appellant had told him that he had no
objection if he was searched by him.
The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.