Firoz Khan @ Pittulal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 1397 MP

                                                                1
                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT JABALPUR
                                                      CRA No. 1705 of 2010
                                         (SURENDRA SINGH JAAT Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                                          CRA/01706/2010, CRA/01707/2010, CRA/02058/2010
                          Dated : 24-01-2023
                                Shri Arubendra Singh Parihar - Advocate for the appellants.

                                Shri Yogesh Dhande - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.

The hearing of this matter commenced yesterday on the request of learned counsel for the appellants.

During the course of hearing, Shri Arubendra Singh Parihar, learned

counsel for the appellants raised a singular contention. He urged that before search of vehicle .i.e. Tata Pickup from where objectionable substance were allegedly recovered, the appellants were not given individual notice as per Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act. In support of this submission, he placed reliance on (2007) 1 SCC 450 (Dilip Kumar Sharma & Ors. V/s State of M.P.). The judgment of Supreme Court reported in (2014) 05 SCC 345 (State of RajasthanV/s Parmanand and another), (the Para -13) is founded upon the previous judgment of the Dilip Kumar Sharma (supra).

Learned Government counsel urged that in (2019) 10 SCC 473 (State

of Punjab V/s Baljinder Singh and Anr.) it was held that the previous judgment in Dilip Kumar Sharma (supra) is not a good law. Since the judgment of State of Rajasthan (supra) is totally based on the judgment of Dilip Kumar Sharma (supra), it cannot be pressed into service and must be treated to be implidely overruled. Consistent with State of Punjab V/s Baljinder Singh(supra) in recent judgment speaking for the Division Bench, Hon'ble Justice Mr. J.K. Maheshwari opined that Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act is Signature Not Verified Signed by: BASANT KUMAR SHRIVAS Signing time: 1/27/2023 10:28:09 AM

inapplicable in the cases of search of vehicle.

Shri Parihar, learned counsel for the appellants regrets for citing the judgments which are no more good law/overruled and urged that he is not ready on other points/merits and, therefore, he may be given two weeks time to prepare the matter.

In (2001) 2 SCC 221 (D.P. Chadha Vs. Triyugi Narain Mishra and Ors.), (2004) 7 SCC 19 ( State of Orissa Vs. Nalinikanta Muduli) and (2019) 6 SCC 441 (Lal Bahadur Gautam Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.) Supreme Court deprecated the practice of advancing arguments on the basis of overruled judgment. It was held to be a sign of falling standard of

professional conduct. We deprecate this practice.

In the interest of justice, we deem it proper to grant time subject to depositing (for wasting the precious time of Court) Rs. 2,000/- in the High Court Legal Aid Committee within 15 days from today.

As agreed, list the matter in the week commencing 13.02.2023. Learned counsel for the appellants shall file receipt of payment of said cost before the next date of hearing.

List the matter with connected matters.

                              (SUJOY PAUL)                                  (AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI))
                                 JUDGE                                               JUDGE

                          R




Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BASANT KUMAR
SHRIVAS
Signing time: 1/27/2023
10:28:09 AM