Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Man Singh & Anr. versus State of M.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Supreme Court (2008)

Home
Supreme Court
2008
Man Singh & Anr. versus State of M.P.Man Singh & Anr. v. State of M.P.

Allowed¶52

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

Practice and Procedure – Disposal of criminal appeal in absence of accused's counsel

Supreme Court24 Sept 20082008 INSC 1085 · [2008] 13 S.C.R. 9662008 INSC 1085

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Man Singh & Anr. v. State of M.P., Criminal Appeal No. 1516 of 2008, decided 24-09-2008 by Dr. Arijit Pasayat and Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, JJ. Convict's appeal under the NDPS Act, 1985 (20 years RI, Rs. 2 lakhs fine) dismissed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench, in the absence of his Legal Aid Committee-appointed advocate and after hearing only the State's panel lawyer. Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order dated 18.4.2007 in Crl. Appeal No. 1235 of 2003, and remitted the matter for fresh hearing; merits (including Sections 42 and 50 NDPS Act points urged by the State) left open. No precedent discussed; no dissent.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of the High Court set aside; matter remitted to the High Court for a fresh hearing. ¶52

Why is it important?

When the advocate appointed by the Legal Aid Committee did not appear on the date fixed, the High Court could have 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. ¶50

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order of the High Court set aside; matter remitted to the High Court for a fresh hearing.

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court rightly dismissed the appellant's appeal when the advocate appointed through the Legal Aid Committee did not appear, without engaging another counsel or at least appointing an Amicus Curiae.

Court's answer

When the advocate appointed by the Legal Aid Committee did not appear on the date fixed, the High Court could have 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.

Ratio / Principle

The Court did not deal with the merits of the case, finding that the counsel appointed by the Legal Aid Committee did not appear on the date fixed before the High Court.

Key takeaways

The impugned order was set aside and the matter remitted to the High Court for a fresh hearing; the appeal was allowed.ratio¶51

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Practice and Procedure - Disposal of criminal appeal in absence of accused's counsel - Accused convicted under the NDPS Act, 1985 (ss. 8/18(b), 8/29/18(b), 8/21(c), 8/29/21(c), 8/28/2(c)) and sentenced to 20 years RI and fine of Rs. 2 lakhs - On the date the appeal was taken up by the High Court, the advocate appointed through the Legal Aid Committee did not appear; the High Court heard the matter with the panel lawyer for the State and dismissed the appeal without engaging another counsel or appointing an Amicus Curiae - Held: the High Court could have required the Legal Aid Committee to appoint another counsel, and considering the seriousness of the offence it would have been appropriate to do so; merits of the conviction not dealt with - Impugned order set aside, matter remitted to the High Court for fresh hearing; appeal allowed.

A

.. ~

~ -

[2008] 13 S.C.R. 966

A

MAN SINGH & ANR.

v.

STATE OF M.P.

(Criminal Appeal No. 1516 of 2008)

B

SEPTEMBER 24, 2008

[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.]

Practice and Procedure ""'7 Disposal of criminal appeal of c^{accusedinabsence of his counsel-}^Proprietyof-^Convic- tion unde1r NDPS Act, 1985 - Accused sentenced to 20 years RI - He filed appeal - On the date, matter was taken up by High Court, Advocate appointed through Legal Aid Committee for accused did not appear - High Court heard the matter D^{withassistance of a panel lawyer for theState and dismissed} the appeal without engaging another counsel or appointing an Amicus Curiae - Held: Considering the seriousness of the offence, it would have been appropriate for the High Court to ask the Legal Aid Committee to appoint another counsel - E^{Matter remitted backtoHighCourt for freshhearing-}^Nar- cotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - ss. 8, 18, 21 and 29.

The Trial Court convicted Appellant under Section 8/ 18(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances F^{Act, 1985 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 sentenced him to 20 years RI. Appellant filed appeal before High Court.

G

On the date the matter was taken up by the High Court, the Advocate appointed through the Legal Aid Committee for the Appellant did not appear and the High Court: heard the matter with the assistance of a panel lawyer for the Respondent-State and dismissed the appeal 966

H

967

MAN SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF M.P.

,,.

··{

without engaging another counsel or app~inting an Amicus Curiae.

A

Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter back to High Court for fresh hearing, the Court

-\

I

~

HELD: The High Court could have in the circumstances of the case 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. [Para 4] [968,E]

CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal ·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

B

c

D

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.

E

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.

"/

~

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 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

F

G

H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS '

[2008] 13 S.C.R.

968

"

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.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the lawB 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 responC 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.

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 LeE 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.

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

The appeal is allowed.

B.B.B. Appeal allowed.

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the High Court rightly dismissed the appellant's appeal when the advocate appointed through the Legal Aid Committee did not appear, without engaging another counsel or at least appointing an Amicus Curiae.¶49
The court held
When the advocate appointed by the Legal Aid Committee did not appear on the date fixed, the High Court could have 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.ratio¶50

Statutes considered

6 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985Section 8/18(b)¶40 Section 8/29/18(b)¶40 Section 8/21(c)¶40 8/29/21(c)¶40 8/28/2( c)¶40 Sections 42 and 50¶49

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Final judgment and order dated 18.4.2007 of a learned Single Judge dismissing the appellant's criminal appeal (Crl. Appeal No. 1235 of 2003) against his conviction and sentence under the NDPS Act, passed after the Legal Aid Committee-appointed advocate did not appear and the appeal was heard with the State's panel lawyer.¶29
High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore · 18.4.2007
Prior proceeding
Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 8/18(b), 8/29/18(b), 8/21(c), 8/29/21(c) and 8/28/2(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985 and sentenced him to 20 years RI with fine of rupees two lakhs (default: 5 years RI).¶40
Prior proceeding
Appellant filed appeal before the High Court against conviction and sentence.¶13
Prior proceeding
On the date fixed before the High Court, the advocate appointed through the Legal Aid Committee did not appear; the learned Single Judge heard the matter with the panel lawyer for the respondent-State and dismissed the appeal without engaging another counsel or appointing an Amicus Curiae.¶48

Parties & counsel

AI extract

appellant
MAN SINGH & ANR.¶33
Ashok Kumar Sharma, Sanjay Misra, Avinash Kumar Jain, Yogesh
respondent
STATE OF M.P.¶34
C.D. Singh, Sunny Chowdhary, Vairagya Vardhan, Aditya Singh

Coram

AI extract

DR. ARIJIT PASAYATauthor¶37
DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMAmember¶11

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Supreme Court
Decided on: 24 Sept 2008 · September
Case no.: 2008 INSC 1085
CNR: ESCR010003432008
Citation: 2008 INSC 1085 · [2008] 13 S.C.R. 966
Topic: Narcotics (NDPS)
Bench: Arijit Pasayat
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Case type: Criminal Appeal

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Arijit Pasayat

Shahu Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Anr. versus Lata P. Kore & Ors.
23 Sept 2008
Ketankumar Babulal Patel versus Kesarben Jesangji and Ors.
23 Sept 2008
Premiya @ Prem Prakash versus State of Rajasthan
22 Sept 2008
State of A.P. versus Guvva Satyanarayana
24 Sept 2008
Aslam @ Deewan versus State of Rajasthan
25 Sept 2008
State of U.P. versus Mutahir Mian
25 Sept 2008

Cite this judgement

Man Singh & Anr. v. State of M.P., 2008 INSC 1085, [2008] 13 S.C.R. 966 (SC).

Neutral and reporter citations as published by the Supreme Court of India.

Statutes6

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985Section 8/18(b) · Section 8/29/18(b) · Section 8/21(c) · 8/29/21(c) · 8/28/2( c) · Sections 42 and 50

View all statutes

Procedural history4

Final judgment and order dated 18.4.2007 of a learned Single Judge dismissing the appellant's criminal appeal (Crl. Appeal No. 1235 of 2003) against his conviction and sentence under the NDPS Act, passed after the Legal Aid Committee-appointed advocate did not appear and the appeal was heard with the State's panel lawyer.High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore · 18.4.2007
Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 8/18(b), 8/29/18(b), 8/21(c), 8/29/21(c) and 8/28/2(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985 and sentenced him to 20 years RI with fine of rupees two lakhs (default: 5 years RI).
Appellant filed appeal before the High Court against conviction and sentence.

View full history

Bench / Coram

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT and DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA

Parties & counsel