# General Secretary and others v. Union of India and others (2004(3)

- **Citation:** (2009) 2 ILRA 389
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2009-05-20
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 19672 of 2008
- **Bench:** Vijay Kumar Verma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/general-secretary-and-others-v-union-of-india-and-others-2004-3-41496
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

N.D.P.S ACT-Section- 50-Recovery of 160
kg. Ganja from jeep-applicant accepted
possession
of
50
kg.
Ganja-while
Commercial quantity should not be more
than
20
kg.-argument
about
non
presence of public officer at the time of
search not available-heinous anti-social
offence committed not entitled for bail
even on ground of a long period of
confinement in jail-application rejected.

Held: Para 9

Having
given
my
thoughtful
consideration to the rival submissions
made by the parties counsel, and after
carefully
going
through
the
entire
material on record, in this heinous antesocial crime, the applicant does not
deserve bail, because Ganja which is said
to have been recovered by the police was
more
than
commercial
quantity.
According to the table given in NDPS Act
commercial quantity of Ganja is 20 kg.,
whereas on the pointing out of the
applicant, 50 kg. Ganja was recovered
from the jeep.
Case Law discussed:
2004 (49) ACC 473, 2008 (63) ACC 115.

## Text

2 All] Muhammad Sabbu V. State of U.P.
389
of deputation is consensual and involves
a voluntary decision of the employer to
lend the services of his employee and a
corresponding
acceptance
of
such
service by the borrowing employer. It
also involves the consent of the employee
to go on deputation.

8. A Division Bench on this Court
in Civil Accounts Association Through
General Secretary and others Vs.
Union of India and others (2004(3)
E.S.C. (Alld.)-1404, in paragraph 23 & 24
of the judgement, has also reiterated the
same view as in Umapati Choudhary's
case (supra).

9. Thus, it is apparent that for the
purposed of deputation, consent of the
employer,
borrowing
employer
and
employee concerned is necessary. In the
absence of consent of any of aforesaid
three persons, there cannot be any
deputation.

10. In the present case, the
petitioner's employer i.e. District Judge,
Mathura has refused to accord consent on
the basis of policy decision taken by the
High Court, and hence in the absence of
the consent of his employer, the petitioner
cannot claim as of right much less a
fundamental right for appointment to a
post under Debt Recovery Tribunal,
Chandigarh on deputation. The petitioner
being an employee of district judgeship
subordinate to and under control of the
High Court, is bound by the policy
decision taken by the High Court in its
Administrative Committee meeting as
stated above.

11. So far as the submission that
aforesaid policy decision has been taken
by the Administrative Committee and not
by the Full Court, is concerned, the same
has also no force in view of the
observations of the Apex Court in State
of U.P. Vs. Batuk Deo Pati Tripathi and
another (1978) 2 SCC 102, paragraph no.
17, which are as under:

"17..........The Administrative Judge
or the Administrative Committee is a mere
instrumentality through which the entire
Court acts for the more convenient
transaction in its business, the assumed
basis of the arrangement being that such
instrumentalities
will
only
act
in
furtherance of the broad policies evolved
from time to time by the High Court as a
whole. Each Judge of the High Court is
an integral limb of the Court. He is its
altergo. It is therefore inappropriate to
say that a Judge or a Committee of
Judges on the High Court authorised by
the Court to act on its behalf is a delegate
of the Court.

12. For the reasons stated above, in
the considered opinion of this Court, the
order impugned dated 1.4.2009 does not
suffer from any illegality or infirmity.

13. Consequently, both the writ
petitions
fail
and
are
accordingly
dismissed. No order as to costs.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.05.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VIJAY KUMAR VERMA, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 19672
of 2008

Muhammad Sabbu

...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P.

...Opposite Party
390 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Ramesh Chandra

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Sri D.R. Chaudhary
A.G.A

N.D.P.S ACT-Section- 50-Recovery of 160
kg. Ganja from jeep-applicant accepted
possession
of
50
kg.
Ganja-while
Commercial quantity should not be more
than
20
kg.-argument
about
non
presence of public officer at the time of
search not available-heinous anti-social
offence committed not entitled for bail
even on ground of a long period of
confinement in jail-application rejected.

Held: Para 9

Having
given
my
thoughtful
consideration to the rival submissions
made by the parties counsel, and after
carefully
going
through
the
entire
material on record, in this heinous antesocial crime, the applicant does not
deserve bail, because Ganja which is said
to have been recovered by the police was
more
than
commercial
quantity.
According to the table given in NDPS Act
commercial quantity of Ganja is 20 kg.,
whereas on the pointing out of the
applicant, 50 kg. Ganja was recovered
from the jeep.
Case Law discussed:
2004 (49) ACC 473, 2008 (63) ACC 115.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vijay Kumar Verma, J.)

1. In this bail application, prayer for
bail has been made on behalf of accusedapplicant Mohammad Sabbu, s/o Vajeer
Miyan, in case Crime No. 447 of 2007,
under section 8/20 NDPS Act, P.S.
Khadda, District Kushi Nagar.

2. The allegations made in the FIR
lodged on 27.12.2007 at P.S. Khadda,
District Kushi Nagar by S.O. Shamsher
Bahadur Singh, in brief, are that on
getting information from informer that
some persons are carrying ganja in Jeep
No. U.P. 52B/ 1741, the said jeep was
stopped by the police on 27.12.2007, at
about 1.30 p.m. and four persons
including the applicant Mohd. Sabbu were
apprehended, who were sitting in Jeep.
When search of the cabin of jeep was
made, than 21 small and big packets were
recovered. On inquiry, the applicant
Mohd. Sabbu claimed 50 kg. Ganja
belonging to him. Other accused also
claimed separate quantity of Ganja
belonging to them. Total 160 Kg. Ganja
was recovered from the jeep, which was
seized and the accused persons were
arrested.

3. I have heard Sri Rmesh Chandra,
Advocate, appearing for the applicant,
learned AGA for the State and perused
the entire record carefully.

4. Firstly, it was submitted by the
learned counsel for the applicant that
compliance of Section 50 NDPS Act was
not made, as prior to making search of the
jeep, option to get to the search made
before the Magistrate or gazetted officer
was not given to the accused persons and
search was made by the arresting officer
himself, which is not permissible.
.

5. It was further submitted that no
persons of public was called to be the
witness of search and hence, merely on
the basis of the statements of police
personnel,
the
applicant
cannot
be
detained further in jail, it was also
submitted in this context that the applicant
is in jail since 27.12.2007 and hence, on
the basis of long detention period also, the
applicant deserves bail now. As his
fundamental
right
of
speedy
trial
2 All] Muhammad Sabbu V. State of U.P.
391
envisaged under Article 21 of the
Constitution is being violated.

6. It was also submitted that entire
seized Ganja was not sent for examination
to Forensic Science Laboratory and
hence, on this ground also, the applicant
is entitled for bail.

7. The bail has been opposed by the
learned
AGA
contesting
that
the
provisions of Section 50 NDPS Act would
not be attracted in present case, because
Ganja was not recovered from personal
search of the applicant and it was seized
from the vehicle. For this submission, my
attention was drawn by the learned AGA
towards the decision of Hon'ble Apex
Court in State of Haryana vs Jarnail
Singh and others 2004 (49) ACC 473.

8. It was further submitted by the
learned AGA that in the absence of public
witnesses,
the
applicant
cannot
be
released on bail on this ground, as this
matter can be considered during trial by
the trial judge.

9. Having given my thoughtful
consideration to the rival submissions
made by the parties counsel, and after
carefully going through the entire material
on record, in this heinous ante-social
crime, the applicant does not deserve bail,
because Ganja which is said to have been
recovered by the police was more than
commercial quantity. According to the
table given in NDPS Act commercial
quantity of Ganja is 20 kg., whereas on
the pointing out of the applicant, 50 kg.
Ganja was recovered from the jeep.

10. It is well settled law by the
catena of decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court
and this Court also that Section 50 of
NDPS Act is applicable in case of
personal search only and where the
contraband is recovered from any vehicle
and not from personal search of the
accused, then provisions of Section 50
NDPS Act would not be applied.

11. In my considered opinion, the
applicants can not be admitted to bail on
the basis of the period of detention in jail
also. In this regard, reference may be
made to the case of Pramod Kumar
Saxena vs. Union of India and others
2008 (63) ACC 115, in which the Hon'ble
Apex Court has held that mere long
period of incarceration in jail would not
be per-se illegal. If the applicant has
committed offence, he has to remain
behind bars. Such detention in jail even as
an under trial prisoner would not be
violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.

12. For the reasons mentioned
herein-above, the bail application of the
applicant Mohammad Sabbu is hereby
rejected.

13. The trial court concerned is
directed to conclude the trial of the
applicant within six months applying the
provisions of section 309 IPC and
avoiding unnecessary adjournments.

14. The Office is directed to send a
copy of this order within a week to the
trial court concerned for necessary action.
---------
392 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.05.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SABHAJEET YADAV, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20841 of 2009

Neena Chaturvedi

...Petitioner
Versus
U.P.
Public
Service
Commission,
Allahabad

 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Yatindra Dubey
Sri N.L. Pandey

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri M.A. Qadeer
Sri Pushpendra Singh

Constitution
of
India
Art.
226Application send through Speed Postreached at its destination after expiry of
the last day of acceptance-whether the
addressee responsible to for delay?-
held-"No"-post office act as agent of
sender and not of addressee-matter
referred to larger bench comprising 3 or
more
judges-interim
measure
commission
directed
to
accept
the
application provisionally subject to final
decision.

Held: Para 51

Since the postal service constituted
under the provisions of Indian Post
Office Act 1898 is entrusted public
service and stood test of time, therefore,
having regard to the facts that the
questions involved in the case have wide
impact upon the large public interest
touching the fundamental rights of the
candidates under Articles 16 and 21 of
the
Constitution
of
India,
an
authoritative decision is required to be
rendered by Full Bench of this Court
comprising of atleast three or more than
three judges so that the matter may be
set at rest for all the times to come in
future. The Hon'ble the Chief Justice is
requested to constitute a Full Bench of
this Court comprising of at least three or
more than three judges for deciding the
questions formulated by me in preceding
part of this judgment as early as
possible.
Case law discussed:
1974 A.L.J. 470 (FB), 1987 U.P.L.B.E.C. 316,
W.P. No.57508 of 2005, W.P. No.67808 of
2006, W.P. No.23152 of 2006, AIR 1980 SC
431, AIR 1954 SC 429, AIR 1959 SC 1160, AIR
1966 SC 1466, AIR 1959 SC 1070, AIR 1959
SC 1160, AIR 1966 SC 1466, AIR 1959 SC
1070, AIR 1979 S.C. 1384, AIR 1968 SC 647,
(1987) 1 SCC 213, (2003) 2 SCC 111, AIR
1990 SC1782, AIR 1988 SC 1531, AIR 1989 SC
38, (1990) 3 S.C.C. 682, JT 2000 (6) SC 320,
JT 1991 (3) SC 268 : 1991 (4) SCC 138, AIR
1954 SC 429, AIR 1980 SC 431, J.T. 2005 (12)
S.C. 345, 2000 (4) E.S.C. 2483, AIR 1980 S.C.
431, JT 2005 (12) SC 345, AIR 1989 Orissa
130, AIR 1997 A.P. 79, 1995 (1) Madras LW
351.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sabhajeet Yadav, J.)

By this petition, the petitioner has
sought relief of mandamus directing the
Commission to accept the application
form submitted by the petitioner and
allow her to participate in process of
selection as a candidate for the post of
Lecturer in Government Intermediate
College by treating her application within
time.

2. The relief sought for in this writ
petition rests on the facts that the
Commission
has
advertised
certain
vacancies of Lecturers in Government
Intermediate Colleges. The last date for
receipt of the application form was 20th
February,
2009.
According
to
the
conditions stipulated in the advertisement
duly filled application form must reach to
the office of the Commission till 5.00
p.m. by 20th February, 2009 or before it