Man Singh & Anr. v. State of M.P.

Judgment

CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal I ·No. 1516 of 2006 From the final Judgment and Order dated 18.4.2007 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in Crl. Appeal No. 1235 of 2003 Ashok Kumar Sharma, Sanjay Misra, Avinash Kumar Jain and Yogesh for the Appellants. C.D. Singh, Sunny Chowdhary, Vairagya Vardhan and Aditya Singh for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1Leave granted.

2Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur, Bench at Indore, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant who had questioned his conviction for offence punishable under Section 8/18(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter for short 'the Act') and in the alternative under Section 8/29/18(b) of the Act and under Section 8/21(c) and in the alternative 8/29/21(c) and in the alternative 8/28/2( c) of the Act and sentence of 20 years RI and fine of rupees two lakhs with a stipulation that in the event of default of payment of fine each of the accused/appellants would suffer RI for 5 years. It appears that when the matter was taken up by the A High Court learned Advocate who was appointed through Legal Aid Committee did not appear. Learned Single Judge heard the matter with the assistance of the learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.

3Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the law- B yer who was appointed by the Legal Aid Committee did not appear, when the matter was called, forthe reasons best known to him and the High Court should not have dismissed the appeal without engaging another counsel or at least without appointing an Amicus Curiae. Learned counsel for the respon- C dent-State on the other hand submitted that the High Court has analysed the relevant evidence including the evidence of PWs 9 and 10, who were the official witnesses. It is pointed out that Sections 42 and 50 of the Act have no relevance because the alleged seizure took place in a public place and search was not D of person.

4We need not deal with the merits of the case as we find that the learned counsel appointed by the Legal Aid Committee did not appear on the date fixed before the High Court. The High Court could have in such circumstances required the Le- E gal Aid Committee to appoint another counsel. Considering the seriousness of the offence it would have been appropriate for the High Court to do so.

5In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order F and remit the matter to the High Court for a fresh hearing.

6The appeal is allowed. B.B.B. Appeal allowed.