{"id":11268,"date":"2018-12-04T20:58:40","date_gmt":"2018-12-04T15:28:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/?p=11268"},"modified":"2018-12-04T20:58:40","modified_gmt":"2018-12-04T15:28:40","slug":"1512-2018","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/1512-2018\/","title":{"rendered":"Accused found in possession of \u201cmanufactured drug\u201d can be tried under NDPS Act in place of Drugs and Cosmetics Act"},"content":{"rendered":"

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA<\/strong>
\nCRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION<\/p>\n

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1512 OF 2018
\n(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL) NO. 4762 OF 2018)<\/p>\n

STATE OF PUNJAB \u2026APPELLANT<\/p>\n

VERSUS<\/p>\n

RAKESH KUMAR \u2026RESPONDENT<\/p>\n

WITH<\/p>\n

Criminal Appeal No. 1514 of 2018
\n(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.4816 of 2018)<\/p>\n

Criminal Appeal No. 1515 of 2018
\n(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.4817 of 2018)<\/p>\n

Criminal Appeal No. 1517 of 2018
\n(Arising out of SLP(Crl) No.4869 of 2018)<\/p>\n

Criminal Appeal No. 1516 of 2018
\n(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.4818 of 2018)<\/p>\n

Criminal Appeal No. 1513 of 2018
\n(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.4796 of 2018)<\/p>\n

Criminal Appeal No. 1518 of 2018
\n(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.4881 of 2018)<\/p>\n

Criminal Appeal No. 1521 of 2018
\n(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.5032 of 2018)<\/p>\n

Criminal Appeal No. 1530 of 2018
\n(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.5897 of 2018)<\/p>\n

Criminal Appeal No. 1520 of 2018
\n(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.4968 of 2018)<\/p>\n

Criminal Appeal No. 1526 of 2018
\n(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.5893 of 2018)<\/p>\n

Criminal Appeal No. 1525 of 2018
\n(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.5892 of 2018)<\/p>\n

Criminal Appeal No. 1519 of 2018
\n(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.4953 of 2018)<\/p>\n

Criminal Appeal No. 1528 of 2018
\n(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.5895 of 2018)<\/p>\n

Criminal Appeal No. 1523 of 2018
\n(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.5886 of 2018)<\/p>\n

Criminal Appeal No. 1527 of 2018
\n(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.5894 of 2018)<\/p>\n

Criminal Appeal No. 1524 of 2018
\n(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.5891 of 2018)<\/p>\n

Criminal Appeal No. 1529 of 2018
\n(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.5896 of 2018)<\/p>\n

Criminal Appeal No. 1522 of 2018
\n(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.5877 of 2018)<\/p>\n

Criminal Appeal No. 1533 of 2018
\n(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.7223 of 2018)<\/p>\n

Criminal Appeal No. 1532 of 2018
\n(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.7222 of 2018)<\/p>\n

Criminal Appeal No. 1536 of 2018
\n(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.7228 of 2018)<\/p>\n

Criminal Appeal No. 1531 of 2018
\n(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.7221 of 2018)<\/p>\n

Criminal Appeal No. 1534 of 2018
\n(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.7225 of 2018)<\/p>\n

And<\/p>\n

Criminal Appeal No. 1535 of 2018
\n(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.7227 of 2018)<\/p>\n

JUDGMENT
\nN.V. RAMANA, J.<\/p>\n

1. Leave granted.<\/p>\n

2. The present appeals are filed by the State having been aggrieved by the common judgment and order dated 29 th January, 2018 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, allowing the applications for suspension of sentence, preferred by the accused\u00adrespondents herein under Section 389 Cr.P.C. and \f directing to release them on bail, while the Appeals are pending in the High Court.<\/p>\n

3. In order to appreciate the merits of these appeals, brief facts which have emerged from the case of the prosecution need to be noted at the outset. In all these appeals, the accused\u00ad respondents were apprehended with\u201cmanufactured drugs\u201d and convicted by the Trial Court for offences committed under Section 21 or Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as \u201cN.D.P.S Act\u201d). The alleged offences and conviction recorded by the Trial Court against the respondents are listed below:<\/p>\n

CASE NAME OF JUDGMENT
\nS.NO. RECOVERY CONVICTION
\nNO. ACCUSED BY & DATE
\nU\/s 22 of
\nSpecial
\nCRA\u00ad NDPS Act
\n3500 tablets of Judge, Sri
\nS\u00ad840\u00ad Rakesh \u2013 10 years
\n1. Microlit containing Muktsar
\nSB\u00ad Kumar RI &
\nDiphenoxylate salt Sahib \u2013
\n2015 Rs.1.00
\n18.11.2014
\nlac fine.
\nU\/s 22 of
\n3.900 kgs of Judge,
\nCRA\u00ad NDPS Act
\nAnwar intoxicating powder Special
\nS\u00ad227\u00ad \u2013 10 years
\n2. Khan @ containing Court,
\nSB\u00ad RI &
\nSoni Dexiropropoxyphen Sangrur \u2013
\n2015 Rs.1.00
\ne salt 17.11.2014
\nlac fine.
\n3. CRA\u00ad Monnu 81.76 gms salt U\/s 22 of Special
\nS\u00ad Diphenoxylate NDPS Act Judge,<\/p>\n

\u2013 10 years
\n3148\u00ad
\nRI & Ferozepur \u2013
\nSB\u00ad Hydrochloride
\nRs.1.00 04.06.2015<\/p>\n

lac fine.
\nU\/s 22 of
\nCRA\u00ad Judge,
\nNDPS Act
\nS\u00ad Diphenoxylate Special
\n\u2013 10 years
\n4. 4134\u00ad Dharmu powder in Court,
\nRI
\nSB\u00ad commercial quantity Ludhiana \u2013
\n&Rs.1.00
\n2015 25.05.2015
\nlac fine.
\nU\/s 22 of
\nCRA\u00ad Judge,
\nNDPS Act
\nS\u00ad Special
\nGurwinder 70 gms containing \u2013 10 years<\/p>\n

5. 5246\u00ad Court, Singh Diphenoxylate salt RI & SB\u00ad Ludhiana \u2013 Rs.1.00 2015 10.11.2015 lac fine.<\/p>\n

U\/s 22 (a)
\n& 2(c) of
\nNDPS Act
\n19110 mls of \u2013 1 year Judge,
\nCRA\u00ad
\nMohd. intoxicating liquid RI & Special
\nS\u00ad71\u00ad
\n6. Akhtar @ 10 capsules of Rs.5000\/\u00ad Court,
\nSB\u00ad
\nSoni Parvon Spas, 10 fine and Sangrur \u2013<\/p>\n

tablets of Euphoria 10 years 09.12.2015
\nRI &
\nRs.1.00
\nlac fine.
\nU\/s 22 of
\nJudge,
\nCRA\u00ad NDPS Act
\nSpecial
\nS\u00ad323\u00ad Munish \u2013 10 years
\n7. 15 Vials of Rexcof Court,
\nSB\u00ad Kumar RI &
\nBathinda \u2013
\n2015 Rs.1.00
\n09.01.2015
\nlac fine.
\nU\/s 22 of
\nJudge,
\nCRA\u00ad NDPS Act
\nGudawar 60 gms intoxicating Special
\nS\u00ad200\u00ad \u2013 10 years
\n8. Ram @ powder containing Court, SBS
\nSB\u00ad RI &
\nGabbu Diphenoxylate salt Nagar \u2013
\n2017 Rs.1.00
\n09.12.2016
\nlac fine.
\n9. CRA\u00ad Baljinder 7500 mls of Corex U\/s 22 of Judge,<\/p>\n

NDPS Act
\nSpecial
\nS\u00ad766\u00ad \u2013 10 years
\nSingh @ syrup containing Court,
\nSB\u00ad RI &
\nBanty Codeine phosphate Sangrur \u2013
\n2017 Rs.1.00
\n20.12.2016
\nlac fine.
\nU\/s 22 of
\nCRA\u00ad Judge,
\nNDPS Act
\nS\u00ad Sukhraj 120 bottles of Special
\n\u2013 10 years
\n10. 1413\u00ad Kaur @ Rexcof containing Court,
\nRI &
\nSB\u00ad Raj Codeine phosphate Sangrur \u2013
\nRs.1.00
\n2017 08.03.2017
\nlac fine.
\nU\/s 21 of
\nCRA\u00ad 25 gms Heroin & Judge,
\nNDPS Act
\nS\u00ad Gurpreet 250 gms Special
\n\u2013 10 years
\n11. 4055\u00ad Singh @ intoxicating powder Court,
\nRI &
\nSB\u00ad Gopi containing Amritsar \u2013
\nRs.1.00
\n2016 Alprazolam 06.09.2016
\nlac fine.
\nU\/s 22 of
\nCRA\u00ad Judge,
\n320 gms NDPS Act
\nS\u00ad Salwinder Special
\nintoxicating powder \u2013 10 years<\/p>\n

12. 2933\u00ad Singh @ Court, Tarn containing RI & SB\u00ad Shinda Taran \u2013 Diphenoxylate Rs.1.00 2016 09.08.2016 lac fine.<\/p>\n

U\/s 22 of
\nJudge,
\nCRA\u00ad NDPS Act
\nKaramjit 10 Vials of Rexcof Special
\nS\u00ad985\u00ad \u2013 10 years
\n13. Singh @ containing Codeine Court,
\nSB\u00ad RI &
\nKarma Phosphate Faridkot \u2013
\n2017 Rs.1.00
\n04.01.2017
\nlac fine.
\nU\/s 22 of
\n300 gms Addl.
\nCRA\u00ad NDPS Act
\nMandeep intoxicating powder Sessions
\nS\u00ad723\u00ad \u2013 10 years
\n14. Singh @ containing Judge,
\nSB\u00ad RI &
\nMani Diphenoxylate Amritsar \u2013
\n2016 Rs.1.00
\nHydrochloride 23.12.2015
\nlac fine.
\n15. CRA\u00ad Jagmohan 100 gms U\/s 22 of Judge,
\nS\u00ad Singh @ intoxicating powder NDPS Act Special
\n1531\u00ad Mithu containing \u2013 10 years Court,
\nSB\u00ad Diphenoxylate RI & Amritsar \u2013
\n2016 Hydrochloride Rs.1.00 10.03.2016<\/p>\n

lac fine.
\nU\/s 22 of
\nCRA\u00ad Judge,
\nNDPS Act
\nS\u00ad Nachhatar 60 gms intoxicating Special
\n\u2013 10 years
\n16. 2398\u00ad Singh @ powder containing Court, Tarn
\nRI &
\nSB\u00ad Sonu Diphenoxylate Taran\u2013
\nRs.1.00
\n2017 16.05.2017
\nlac fine.
\n50 bottles of Rexcof
\nJudge,
\nGaurav syrup & 250 tablets U\/s 22 of
\nCRA\u00ad Special
\nBajaj (the of Carisona from NDPS Act
\nS\u00ad Court,
\nother Gaurav Bajaj 45 \u2013 10 years
\n17. 1972\u00ad Fazilka\u2013
\nappellant bottles of Rexcof RI &
\nSB\u00ad 17.03.2017
\nManpreet syrup & 200 tablets Rs.1.00<\/p>\n

Singh) of Carisona from lac fine.
\nManpreet Singh
\nU\/s 22 of
\nCRA\u00ad 19 vials of Rexcof, Judge,
\nNDPS Act
\nS\u00ad 1200 tablets of Special
\nGurpreet \u2013 10 years
\n18. 3921\u00ad Pinotil and 450 Court,
\nSingh RI &
\nSB\u00ad tablets of Bathinda \u2013
\nRs.1.00
\n2013 Alprazolam 24.10.2013
\nlac fine.
\nU\/s 22 of
\nCRA\u00ad Judge,
\nNDPS Act
\nS\u00ad 12 vials of Rexcof Special
\nJaspal \u2013 10 years
\n19. 1529\u00ad containing codeine Court,
\nSingh RI &
\nSB\u00ad Phosphate Sangrur \u2013
\nRs.1.00
\n2017 07.03.2017
\nlac fine.
\n1300 tablets
\nU\/s 22 of
\nSanjiv weighing 101, 400 Judge,
\nCRA\u00ad NDPS Act
\nKumar & gms from Sanjiv Special
\nS\u00ad750\u00ad \u2013 10 years
\n20. Paramjit Kumar; 400 tablets Court\u00adIII,
\nSB\u00ad RI &
\nSingh @ weighing 31.200 Ferozepur \u2013
\n2014 Rs.1.00
\nPamma gms from Paramjit 27.01.2014
\nlac fine.
\nSingh @ Pamma
\nU\/s 22 of
\nCRA\u00ad Judge,
\nNDPS Act
\nS\u00ad Special
\nAkash 3500 mls containing \u2013 10 years
\n21. 4894\u00ad Court,
\nKumar Codeine Phosphate RI &
\nSB\u00ad Sangrur \u2013
\nRs.1.00
\n2015 16.10.2015
\nlac fine.<\/p>\n

U\/s 22of
\nCRA\u00ad Judge,
\nNDPS Act
\nS\u00ad 20 vials of Rexcof Special
\nSatnam \u2013 10 years
\n22. 2574\u00ad containing Court,
\nSingh RI &
\nSB\u00ad Dextropropoxyphene Faridkot \u2013
\nRs.1.00
\n2017 06.07.2017
\nlac fine.
\nU\/s 22 of
\nCRA\u00ad Judge,
\n2000 tablets NDPS Act
\nS\u00ad Amit Special
\ncontaining \u2013 10 years
\n23. 1616\u00ad Kumar Court,
\nDiphenoxylate RI &
\nSB\u00ad Mehta Patiala \u2013
\nHydrochloride Rs.1.00
\n2017 01.03.2017
\nlac fine.
\nU\/s 22 of
\nAddl.
\nCRA\u00ad NDPS Act
\nGurjant 60 gms intoxicating Sessions
\nS\u00ad185\u00ad \u2013 10 years
\n24. Singh @ powder containing Judge, Tarn
\nSB\u00ad RI &
\nJanta Diphenoxylate Taran \u2013
\n2017 Rs.1.00
\n20.10.2016
\nlac fine.
\n100 tablets marka
\nAlprazolam in 5
\nCRM\u00ad strips, 12 injections U\/s Judge,
\nGurpreet
\nM\u00ad Buprenorphine 2 22\/61\/85 Special
\n25. Singh @
\n23054\u00ad ml, 2 bottles of of NDPS Court,
\nTuli
\n2017 injections Avil 10 ml Act Jalandhar
\n& 116 gms
\nintoxicant powder<\/p>\n

4. Aggrieved by the Judgment and conviction by the respective Trial Courts, the accused\u00adrespondents approached the High Court through various appeals. The accused\u00adrespondents, during the pendency of the appeals, preferred an application seeking suspension of sentence. Since a common question of law was involved in the above appeals, the High Court heard the matters \f together and passed a common order dated 29.01.2018, allowing the applications for suspension of sentence preferred by the accused\u00adrespondents. The High Court observed that manufactured drugs, be it containing narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, if manufactured by a manufacturer, must be tried, if violation is there, under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and not under the NDPS Act, except those in loose form by way of powder, liquid etc. Dissatisfied by the above order dated 29.01.2018, the State has preferred the present appeals.<\/p>\n

5. The counsel on behalf of the appellant\u00adState, while criticizing the impugned order passed by the High Court, drew our attention to the relevant provisions of the N.D.P.S Act and Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and submitted that, the N.D.P.S Act, itself does not bar the application of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Further, the counsel also argued that, the impugned judgment is in gross violation of the decision rendered in Inderjeet Singh v. State of Punjab 2014 (3) RCR (Criminal) 953, by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The counsel also relied upon the decision rendered by \f this Court in Union of India v. Sanjeev V. Deshpande (2014) 13 SCC 1, wherein it was clearly held that dealing in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances is permissible only if it is for medical or scientific purposes. But even the usage for medical and scientific purposes is not restriction free, as it is subject to rules under the N.D.P.S Act.<\/p>\n

6. On the contrary, the counsel on behalf of the accused\u00ad respondents has supported the reasoning of the High Court while stating that it is very farfetched to presume that, any person who is apprehended with bulk quantity of manufactured drug, without having a license for the same, has committed an offence which is liable to be prosecuted under the N.D.P.S Act. The counsel further submitted that, the High Court was correct to conclude that, it can be considered as a violation of the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Therefore, there was no error in granting the relief of suspension of sentence, considering that the appeals are not going to be adjudicated in the near future.<\/p>\n

7. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties.<\/p>\n

8. At the outset it is essential to note the objectives of the two \f legislations before us, i.e., the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the N.D.P.S Act. The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 was enacted to specifically prevent sub\u00adstandard drugs and to maintain high standards of medical treatment. (See Chimanlal Jagjivandas Sheth v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1963 SC<\/p>\n

665) The Drugs and Cosmetics Act,1940 was mainly intended to curtail the menace of adulteration of drugs and also of production, manufacture, distribution and sale of spurious and sub\u00adstandard drugs. On the other hand, the N.D.P.S Act is a special law enacted by the Parliament with an object to control and regulate the operations relating to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. After analyzing the objectives of both the Acts, we can safely conclude that while the Drugs and Cosmetics Act deals with drugs which are intended to be used for therapeutic or medicinal usage, on the other hand the N.D.P.S Act intends to curb and penalize the usage of drugs which are usedfor intoxication or for getting a stimulant effect.<\/p>\n

9. At this juncture, it is also pertinent to note the relevant provisions under the N.D.P.S Act. Section 8 of the 1985 Act, is the prohibitory clause whose violation would lead to penal \f consequence:<\/p>\n

Section 8. Prohibition of certain operations. \u00adNo person shall\u00ad
\n(a) cultivate any coca plant or gather any portion of coca plant; or
\n(b) cultivate the opium poppy or any cannabis plant; or
\n(c) produce, manufacture, possess, sell, purchase, transport, warehouse, use, consume, import inter\u00adState, export inter\u00ad State, import into India, export from India or transship any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, except for medical or scientific purposes and in the manner and to the extent provided by the provisions of this Act or the rules or orders made thereunder and in a case where any such provision, imposes any requirement by way of licence, permit or authorization also in accordance with the terms and conditions of such licence, permit or authorization: Provided that, and subject to the other provisions of this Act and the rules made there under, the prohibition against the cultivation of the cannabis plant for the production of ganja or the production, possession, use, consumption, purchase, sale, transport, warehousing, import inter\u00adState and export inter State of ganja for any purpose other than medical and scientific purpose shall take effect only from the date which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf.
\n10. Further, Section 21 provides for punishment for contraventions in \f relation to manufactured drugs and preparations and Section 22 provides for punishment for contraventions in relation to psychotropic substances. Both the above provisions provide for the imposition of rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years, and the imposition of a fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may be extended to two lakh rupees, if the recovered substance amounts to commercial quantity. However, the proviso appended thereto empowers the Court, with a discretionary power to impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees for reasons to be recorded in the judgment.<\/p>\n

11. In the present case, the accused\u00adrespondents were found in bulk possession of manufactured drugs without any valid authorization. The counsel on behalf of the appellant\u00adState has extensively stressed that the actions of the accused\u00adRespondents amounts to clear violation of Section 8 of the N.D.P.S Act as it clearly prohibits possession of narcotic substances except for medicinal or scientific purposes. In furtherance of the same, the counsel on behalf of the appellant\u00adState has put emphasis on the judgment rendered by this court in the case of Union of India \f vs. Sanjeev V. Deshpande (supra), wherein it was held that:<\/p>\n

\u201c25. In other words, DEALING IN narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances is permissible only when such DEALING is for medical purposes or scientific purposes. Further, the mere fact that the DEALING IN narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances is for a medical or scientific purpose does not by itself lift the embargo created Under Section 8(c). Such a dealing must be in the manner and extent provided by the provisions of the Act, Rules or Orders made thereunder. Sections 9 and 10 enable the Central and the State Governments respectively to make rules permitting and regulating various aspects (contemplated under Section 8(c), of DEALING IN narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
\n26.The Act does not contemplate framing of rules for prohibiting the various activities of DEALING IN narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. Such prohibition is already contained in Section 8(c). It only contemplates of the framing of Rules for permitting and regulating any activity of DEALING IN narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances\u2026\u201d (emphasis supplied)
\n12. In the present appeals before us, the trial courts after analyzing the evidence placed before them, held the accused Respondents guilty beyond reasonable doubt and convicted them for offences committed under Section 21 and Section 22 of the N.D.P.S Act.
\n13. The counsels for the accused\u00adrespondents have strongly supported the judgment of the High Court wherein it was held that, since the present matters deal with \u201cmanufactured drugs\u201d the present respondents should be tried for the violation of provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.<\/p>\n

14. However, we are unable to agree on the conclusion reached by the High Court for reasons stated further. First, we note that Section 80 of the N.D.P.S Act, clearly lays down that application of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act is not barred, and provisions of N.D.P.S. Act can be applicable in addition to that of the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The statute further clarifies that the provisions of the N.D.P.S Act are not in derogation of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. This Court in the case of Union of India vs. Sanjeev V. Deshpande (supra), has held that, \u201c35. \u2026essentially the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 deals with various operations of manufacture, sale, purchase etc. of drugs generally whereas Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 deals with a more specific class of drugs and, therefore, a special law on the subject.<\/p>\n

Further the provisions of the Act operate in addition to the provisions of 1940 Act.\u201d \f (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n

15. The aforesaid decision further clarifies that, the N.D.P.S Act, should not be read in exclusion to Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Additionally, it is the prerogative of the State to prosecute the offender in accordance with law. In the present case, since the action of the accused\u00adRespondents amounted to a prima\u00adfacie violation of Section 8 of the N.D.P.S Act, they were charged under Section 22 of the N.D.P.S Act.<\/p>\n

16. In light of above observations, we find that decision rendered by the High Court holding that the accused\u00adrespondents must be tried under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 instead of the N.D.P.S Act, as they were found in possession of the \u201cmanufactured drugs\u201d, does not hold good in law. Further, in the present case, the accused\u00adrespondents had approached the High Court seeking suspension of sentence. However, in granting the aforesaid relief, the High Court erroneously made observations on the merits of the case while the appeals were still pending before it.<\/p>\n

17. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and \f the gravity of offence alleged against the accused\u00adrespondents, the order of the High Court directing suspension of sentence and grant of bail is clearly unsustainable in law and the same is liable to be set aside.<\/p>\n

18. Accordingly the impugned order passed by the High Court is hereby set aside and the concerned authorities are directed to take the accused\u00ad respondents herein into custody forthwith.<\/p>\n

19. Lastly, the counsels for respondents in Appeals arising out of SLP (Crl) No.4816\/2018 and SLP (Crl) No.4817\/2018 have specifically pleaded that the respondents have already undergone a considerable period under incarceration. In light of the same, we request the High Court to expedite the hearings and dispose of the appeals accordingly. It is needless to observe that the observations made during the course of this order are only for deciding these appeals.<\/p>\n

20. The appeals stand allowed in aforesaid terms. As a sequel pending applications, if any shall also stand disposed of.<\/p>\n

(N. V. Ramana)
\n(Mohan M. Shantanagoudar)
\n(M.R. Shah)
\nNEW DELHI, DECEMBER 03, 2018<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1512 OF 2018 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL) NO. 4762 OF 2018) STATE…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1091,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_customify_content_layout":"","_customify_sidebar":"","_customify_page_header_display":"","_customify_disable_header":"","_customify_disable_header_top":"","_customify_disable_header_main":"","_customify_disable_header_bottom":"","_customify_disable_page_title":"","_customify_disable_content_vertical_padding":"","_customify_disable_footer_top":"","_customify_disable_footer_main":"","_customify_disable_footer_bottom":"","_customify_breadcrumb_display":"","_customify_header_transparent_display":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[65],"tags":[2186,50412,548,24287,49,52,48,57074,50408,50413,50406,50409,15228,119,72705,54617,72704,54246,67578,70013,3007,16006,49238,72703],"class_list":["post-11268","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-judgments","tag-498a-advice","tag-498a-judgment","tag-custody","tag-custody-judgment","tag-divorce","tag-domestic-violence","tag-dowry","tag-dowry-law-misuseipc-498a-by-indian-women-men-victims-of-498a","tag-dowry-system","tag-dva-judgment","tag-free-498a-advice","tag-land-mark-judgments-on-498a-ipc","tag-m-r-shah","tag-maintenance","tag-manufactured-drug","tag-mohan-m-shantanagoudar","tag-n-d-p-s-act","tag-n-v-ramana","tag-narcotic-drugs","tag-ndps-act","tag-no-maintenance","tag-possession","tag-section-80","tag-section-80-of-ndps-act"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11268","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1091"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11268"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11268\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11268"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11268"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11268"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}