Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sankapaka Laxman Bhoomaiah @ Babu, was the original accused No.1 in NDPS Special Case No. 208/1989 before the Special Judge (N.D.P.S.) Court for Greater Bombay. He was charged with offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The Special Judge, by judgment and order dated 27.7.1995, acquitted the appellant and directed that he be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case. However, the Special Judge also directed that the muddemal property (contraband) be destroyed after the appeal period, and that the cash amount of Rs.10,000/- (equivalent to US dollar 1000) and amounts under fixed deposit receipts be forfeited to the State after the appeal period. The appellant filed Criminal Appeal No. 589 of 1995 in the Bombay High Court challenging the judgment and order, particularly the forfeiture direction. At the final hearing, none appeared for the appellant or for Respondent No.1 (Intelligence Officer, NCB). The Additional Public Prosecutor, Shri P.D. Adsule, appeared for Respondent No.2 (State of Maharashtra) and supported the impugned judgment. The High Court observed that a criminal appeal is a continuation of trial proceedings and must be concluded as early as possible. The court noted that the advocate for the appellant failed to attend the final hearing without any pressing or inevitable reason, which amounts to professional misconduct or breach of duty. The court dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, thereby upholding the forfeiture of the cash and fixed deposit receipts. The court also referred to the Supreme Court decision in S.J. Chaudhary vs. State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1984 SC 618, emphasizing that trials must proceed continuously from inception to finish.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Appeal as Continuation of Trial - Duty of Advocate - A criminal appeal is a continuation of trial proceedings and must be concluded as early as possible. An advocate accepting a criminal appeal must attend its final hearing; failure without pressing or inevitable reason amounts to professional misconduct or breach of duty. (Para 3) B) Narcotic Drugs - Forfeiture of Proceeds of Crime - Sections 8(c), 21, 29 NDPS Act - The Special Judge directed forfeiture of cash amount of Rs.10,000/- (US dollar 1000) and amounts under fixed deposit receipts to the State after the appeal period, despite acquittal of the accused. The High Court upheld the forfeiture as the muddemal property was directed to be destroyed and the cash and deposits were proceeds of narcotics trafficking. (Para 1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the forfeiture of cash and fixed deposit receipts ordered by the Special Judge despite acquittal of the accused under the NDPS Act is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. The forfeiture of cash amount of Rs.10,000/- (US dollar 1000) and amounts under fixed deposit receipts to the State, as directed by the Special Judge, is upheld.
Law Points
- Criminal appeal is continuation of trial
- duty of advocate to attend final hearing
- forfeiture of proceeds of crime under NDPS Act
