REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICITON

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.   1516       OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 5051 of 2007)

Man Singh & Anr. …Appellants

Versus

State of M.P. …Respondent

JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge 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

1

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 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.

3. Learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  submitted  that  the

lawyer who was appointed by the Legal Aid Committee did not

appear,  when  the  matter  was  called,  for  the  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 respondent-State  on the other  hand submitted that  the

High Court has analysed the relevant evidence including the

2

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 of person.

4. We 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 Legal Aid Committee to appoint another counsel.

Considering the seriousness of the offence it would have been

appropriate for the High Court to do so.

5. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order

and remit the matter to the High Court for a fresh hearing.

6. The appeal is allowed.           

……………………………….……J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

3

……………………………….……J. (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

New Delhi: September 24, 2008

4