Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madhya Pradesh High Court: This petition was filed before the Bench of Atul Sreedharan, J., against the order passed by Special Judge (Atrocities), District Damoh where order passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, District Damoh was affirmed.

Petitioner submitted that the order was passed by the Juvenile Justice Board whereby preliminary assessment of petitioner was done and direction was given that he should be tried as an adult due to the nature of the crime committed. Petitioner was charged for the murder of a member of a depressed class. He had submitted that the assessment done above was to be concluded within a period of three months mandatory from the date of the first production of the child before the Board in accordance with the provision of Section 14(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 but this assessment took almost a year. Whereas the respondent contended the provision to be procedural with no consequence of its violation provided in the Act thus, cannot be considered a mandatory provision.

High Court was of the view that since the delay was adequately explained and no prejudice was caused to petitioner, there was no need for this Court to interpret the provision to be mandatory under all circumstances. Therefore, this petition was dismissed. [Bhola v. State of M.P., 2019 SCC OnLine MP 521, dated 01-04-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Himachal Pradesh High Court: Chander Bhushan Barowalia, J., allowed a criminal appeal filed against the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 20 of NDPS Act, 1985.

The case against the appellant was that while the police was on patrol duty, the appellant saw the police and started to run. He was apprehended by the police. The appellant was carrying a bag which was searched and it was found that the appellant was carrying charas. Thereafter, the person of the appellant was searched by the police personnel without informing him about his right under Section 50 to get searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. He was tried by the trial court and convicted under the section mentioned above. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed the instant appeal.

The High Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in State of Rajasthan v. Parmanand, (2014) 5 SCC 345, wherein it was laid down that compliance with the condition of Section 50 NDPS Act, was a mandatory provision. The purpose of the section is to inform the person to be searched about his right to get searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. However, in the present case, there was no compliance with the mandatory provision. The High Court was of the view that such failure on part of the police, vitiated the case against the appellant due to not following the procedure laid by the law. In such circumstances, the High Court held that the appellant could not have been convicted by the trial court. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the impugned judgment was set aside. [Joginder Singh v. State of H.P.,  2018 SCC OnLine HP 836, dated 03-07-2018]