Munnalal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3779 MP

                                          1                            MCRC No.61625/2021



            High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur
                        Bench at Indore
          Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.61625/2021
                          (Munnalal S/o Gopilal Mogiya Bavri
                                        Versus
                            The State of Madhya Pradesh)
Indore, Dated 16.03.2022
      Shri Yogesh Purohit, learned counsel for the applicant.

      Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Government Advocate for the respon-

dent / State of Madhya Pradesh.

      They are heard. Perused the case diary / challan papers.

      This is the applicant's repeat (third) application under Section 439 of

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, as he / she is implicated in connection with

Crime No.17/2019 registered at Police Station Narcotics Cell, Indore

District Indore (MP) for offence punishable under Section 8 read with

Sections 18 and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act,

1985 (herein after referred to as the Act).                    His first application

Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.9871/2020 for temporary bail was allowed

by this Court vide order dated 17.03.2020 for a period from 08.04.2020 to

20.04.2020; and his second application Miscellaneous Criminal Case

No.22893/2020 was dismissed as withdrawn on 03.09.2020.

      The applicant is in jail since 25.03.2019.

      The allegation against the applicant is that on 24.03.2019 he was also

involved in the aforesaid offence wherein a commercial quantity of 2.950

kilograms of opium was seized from the joint possession of present

applicant and other co-accused Dara Singh which was being transported in

a motorcycle bearing registration number MP-14 MJ-6058.
                                                                 2                        MCRC No.61625/2021



                                 Counsel for the applicant has taken a strong exception to the non

                        compliance of Section 50 of the Act, as according to him, a joint seizure

                        memo has been prepared by the respondent / prosecution which in itself is

impermissible under the law.

Counsel for the respondent / State, on the other hand, has opposed the

prayer and it is submitted that no case for interference is made out, as the

contraband has been seized from the motorcycle and not from the accused

persons' person; and as such, compliance of Section 50 of the Act was not

at all mandatory, as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of State

of Punjab v. Baljinder Singh & another reported in (2019) 10 SCC 473.

On due consideration of the rival submissions and on perusal of the

case diary as also the judgment as aforesaid in the case of State of Punjab

v. Baljinder Singh & another (supra), this Court finds force with the

contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respondent / State and is of

the opinion that no illegality has been committed by the respondent in

issuing the notice; and in fact, the compliance of Section 50 of the Act in

such circumstances of the cases was not mandatory when the contraband

has been seized not from the person of the accused person, but from the

motorcycle.

Accordingly, Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.61625/2021 is hereby

dismissed.

(Subodh Abhyankar) Judge Pithawe RC

RAMESH CHANDRA PITHWE 2022.03.16 16:46:59 +05'30'