1999 INSC 0309
                                        SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                                     Thandi Ram

                                                         Versus

                                                  State of Haryana

                                       (G.B. Pattanaik and M.B. Shah, JJ)

                                       Criminal Appeal No. 1555 of 1995

                                                      07.04.1999

JUDGMENT

The appellant was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar under Section 18 of
the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, for having found to be in possession of 250
gms opium without any permit or licence and sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years. On appeal,
the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence and hence the present provisions of Section
50, 52, 55 and 57 of the Act had not been complied with. The High Court considered these
provisions but was of the opinion that the officer concerned having accidentally recovered the
article in question, the question of following Section 50 did not arise. So far as the non compliance
with the other provisions are concerned, the High Court was of the view that even though the
provisions of section 55 may be mandatory but no prejudice having been caused the conviction does
not get vitiated. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that in view of the decision of this
Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh as well as the three Judge Bench decision in the
case of Mohinder Kumar v. State, Panaji, Goa the conclusion of the High Court is not sustainable in
law and the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained. We find sufficient force in the aforesaid
contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. In view of the pronouncement of this Court in
the aforesaid cases and in view of the finding as recorded in the judgement of the High Court that
the provisions of Section 55 and 57 have not been complied with the conviction is bad in law. The
appellant has already undergone sentence for 9 years. We, accordingly set aside the impugned
judgment of the High Court and that of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar and acquit the
appellant of the charges levelled against him. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The bail bond
stands discharged.